12 Mar 14 | Africa, Kenya, News and features
(Image: Semmick Photo/Shutterstock)
Kilifi County’s Marafa ward representative Renson Kambi is working on a bill that will bar women from wearing short skirts and men from wearing tight trousers. Kambi says the motion, to be tabled before Kilifi County Assembly soon, is aimed at restoring decency. “Moral standards have gone down in Kilifi” due to “improper dressing,” he stated. “Most ladies are dressing skimpily and that cannot be tolerated.”
The bill, still in its initial stages, proposes among other things, to ban garments that “expose the flesh” in public. He said undue dressing continues to cultivate prostitution, and that the situation must be put under control before it deteriorates further. The bill, however, will not only centre around women’s dress, but also aims at barring men from wearing tight trousers.
Kambi said that it has become difficult to stroll around markets in Kilifi county, especially in the company of in-laws and children, because of the way young men and women have decided to dress. He claims young girls are now putting on micro miniskirts in schools, making it difficult for their male colleagues and male teachers to concentrate. “The girls are putting on ‘very short miniskirts’ to an extent that they cannot even pick up a pen when it falls down without exposing their flesh,” he said.
Kilifi County Deputy Speaker Teddy Mwambire is among a host of leaders who have come out strongly in support of the bill. He says it aspires to ensure that the people of Kilifi county go back to the traditional mode of dressing, bringing to an end what he labelled borrowed cultures.
Mwambire says youths have adopted a way of dressing that has to be dealt with, before immorality makes huge strides in the community. “We cannot just sit still as young people – both male and female continue roaming our streets half naked.”
But former Kilifi Town Council Chairman Anthony Kingi has admonished Kambi for planning to introduce a bill he believes will have no impact on people’s lives, saying he should come up with bills that will improve the state of education in the county. Kingi rubbished claims that improper dress is the main cause of dwindling education standards.
If the bill reaches a majority in the county assembly, it will be passed to Governor Amason Jeffa Kingi who may sign it into law or reject it. For now, debates for or against continue to gain momentum in Kilifi county and across Kenya.
This article was posted on March 12, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
19 Feb 14 | Africa, Kenya, News and features
(Image: Semmick Photo/Shutterstock)
The Kenyan government’s directive to schools to use tribal mother tongues as the main language of instruction in junior school classes has elicited mixed reactions among the country’s education stakeholders. Teacher’s unions and sections of Kenyan society fear it will promote ethnic division, and separate children along tribal lines.
The unions have come out guns blazing against the directive. The Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) has labelled the directive completely “analogue”, and Secretary General Mr. Wilssion Sossion said they were not consulted before it was issued. He added that the unions cannot be overlooked in these cases, and urged the Ministry of Education to suspend the directive and initiate wider consultations.
Omboko Milemba, the chairman of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), argues that directing teachers to teach in mother tongue at the lower level — class one to three, which come after nursery school and kindergarten — will serve to increase the tribalism that is already rampant in the country.
Teaching in vernacular can only work in rural areas where people from one tribe largely reside in the same place. In urban areas, however, where people from various tribes mingle, as pupils and teachers come from different tribal settings and backgrounds, it will be a challenge to enforce the directive.
Another point being raised is whether there are even enough teachers to implement the plan. According to KNUT the country needs close to 80,000 additional teachers to boost the education sector. There is a further problem in the case of smaller tribes, like the Elmolos and Ogieks, as it will be difficult to get enough teacher who can teach in their languages.
John Wesonga, from the Kakamega County Kenya National Union of Teachers says the government is confusing Kenyans with a lot of poorly planned programmes and directives. He insists they should concentrate on the promise by President Uhuru Kenyatta to give class one pupils laptops, instead of coming up with a new proposal to make Kenyans forget this earlier pledge.
Busia County KNUT branch Executive Secretary Mark Oseno, added that the directive will cause a lot of confusion in the curriculum development if implemented, as it will be applied selectively. “If the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then it is not advisable to reintroduce mother tongue in lower classes,” he said.
A few of those in support of the plans say exposing children to their mother tongue will help them cope faster with learning a subsequent second language. Those against, however, stress the need for the government to consult education stakeholders across Kenya’s 47 counties, to prevent a plan that will divide pupils along tribal lines.
This article was published on 19 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
14 Feb 14 | Kenya, News and features, Politics and Society
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta (Image Demotix/David Mbiyu)
In 2010 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued summons for Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, among others, for their alleged role in the violence that erupted following the 2007 Kenyan General Elections. The charges include crime against humanity. Nevertheless, in the elections of 2013, Kenyatta was sworn in as president — Ruto his deputy president — after securing 50.51 percent of the vote in a highly contested but generally peaceful election.
This now means that any movement to evaluate the defendants’ criminal culpability implicates the broader state itself. With Kenyatta and Ruto heading the executive branch of government, the implications of the ICC cases cannot be overstated. But while testing the state’s eagerness to confront the legacy of 2007 these cases offer up a further test; the ability of Kenya’s media institutions, journalists and citizens to freely interrogate the proceedings. Will Kenyatta, Ruto and, by extension, the state let such scrutiny happen in public?
Kenyan legislation in this regard is coloured by tragedy. Following the attacks on Westgate Mall in Nairobi in September 2013, the state moved fast to shore up perceived gaps in legislation that could have enabled the attacks to happen. One of these “gaps” referred to the media, ushering in two pieces of legislation: the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill (KICA) and the Media Council Bill. The former, an amendment to the 1998 law, creates a Communication and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal under the jurisdiction of the state-controlled Communications Authority. According to free speech group Article 19, the tribunal has the power “to impose hefty fines on media houses and journalists, recommend de-registration of journalists and make any order on freedom of expression”.
While raising concerns for media bodies looking to cover the ICC cases of Kenyatta and Ruto among others, the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC), have pointed out a number of more systemic issues. The 2010 constitution drafted to address the political and ethnic divisions that led to the violence of 2007 established robust protections for freedom of expression. KICA potentially undermines these protections, as CIC explained in a statement:
“Clause 7 of the Bill creates a Communications Authority of Kenya…with some of its board members appointed through a process that solely involves the National Executive and the National Assembly…These clauses violate the provisions of Article 34(3) of the Constitution by leaving the Body responsible for licensing broadcasters under the control of two arms of government, the Executive and the National Assembly.”
Any information deemed too sensitive to be in the public domain during the individual cases draws out KICA as a potential tool for the state to restrict the media’s ability to analyse the cases in an unobstructed manner.
The punitive measures outlined in KICA are not to be sniffed at. According to Charles Onyango Obbo of the Daily Nation: “The Sh20 million penalty against a media house that violated several provisions of the new Bill or the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism, is again among the highest a tribunal can hand out in Africa.” A further provision states that media houses will face punitive measures if 45 percent of their coverage is not deemed “local”. The is a potential hindrance for media bodies looking to analyse the ICC cases – how local is The Hague?
Clause (37) of KICA goes on to state that the tribunal may “accept an anonymous complaint concerning an issue of public interest”. This inability for media bodies to identify its accusers opens the process up to manipulation. Can the tribunal determine that protecting Kenyatta and Ruto is in the public interest? When members of the tribunal are selected at the discretion of the National Executive, it is a possibility.
In the context of the ICC cases, this has created a perfect storm in terms of media freedom. Media houses face disproportionate measures, while their governance is outlined by a body at the discretion of both the executive and legislative branches of government – the former facing interrogation from both the ICC and the media.
It’s too early to tell what will happen and what powers will be invoked, but there have already been warning signs. A case was thrown out after it was alleged that a key witness had received a bribe from the defendant and questions remain regarding similar allegations in the case against William Ruto. Does this represent a collective desire to withhold information? The acts of alleged bribery are by no means definitive, but to skew proceedings, it would be the place to start.
And the next step? Media bodies must surely be holding their collective breath because, while they have not used them yet, KICA offers just the tools the state may need.
This article was posted on 14 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
27 Jan 14 | Africa, Kenya, News and features
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta has introduced tough new media laws. Image Demotix/David Mbiyu
Kenya’s media are preparing to launch a challenge to a new system of regulation introduced by President Uhuru Kenyatta.
Early this month, jointly with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), journalists instructed senior lawyer Mr. James Aggery Orengo, who is also a senator, to file a petition challenging the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment Bill 2013.
The new laws have neither been published nor gazetted in the Kenyan gazette as required by law.
Journalists are waiting for the bill to be published and gazzeted in the Kenyan gazette, before they move to court.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite who ran for presidency in last year’s general elections and lost, is among a host of lawyers who will represent the media in court.
The draconian media bill was passed by the National Assembly, and signed into law by President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta late last year.
President Kenyatta’s assent paved the way for formation of a government controlled body, with mandate to punish journalists and media houses, whose reporting is perceived to be against the law.
The new law imposes Kshs. 20 million fines on media houses and Kshs. 1 million shillings on individual journalists seen to have contravened the law.
Individual Journalists are also faced with the danger of being suspended from the journalism profession, a move that is out rightly oppressive and intimidating.
The law restricts press freedom, and breaches constitutional rights for access to information granted to journalists.
The controversial laws seek to gag the freedom of expression and press freedom, as lawfully entailed in the constitution of Kenya 2010.
However, the fines will only apply to persons and media houses that contravene the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism.
Before passage and ascension, media practitioners, various politicians NGOs had voiced concerns over the ruthless bill.
The bill went through parliament unamended, even after The Media Council of Kenya (MCK) had agreed with Kenyan law makers to amend contentious issues, in the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment (KICA) Bill 2013.
Chairperson of the Media Council’s Ethics and Public Information Committee Grace Munjuri said “the amendments will not only protect the rights of the media stakeholders, but will also ensure that journalists exercise responsible reporting.”
Speaking a few days before ascending to the media bill, President Uhuru Kenyatta had suggested that there was nothing unconstitutional with the bill.
Addressing residents at a function in Chuka in Kenya’s Tharaka Nithi County, in the company of his deputy William Samoei Ruto, the head of state accused the media of “misleading the country on provisions of the legislations”.
The two leaders said the media itself had hatched a plan to mislead Kenyans on the contents of the Bill, saying there should be responsibility in everything we do as Kenyans.
This article was posted on 27 January at www.indexoncensorship.org
