A milestone for the protection of torture victims in Africa as first regional instrument on their right to redress is adopted
The first-ever regional instrument on the right to redress for victims of torture and other prohibited ill-treatment has been adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission), the institution responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab Press Statement on the Proposed Amendments to Section 7(1) a (Vii) of the IPOA Act, 2011
The proposed amendment however, seeks to amend this section by inserting: "...provided that where the document, thing or information is privileged, the procedure for producing privileged document, thing or information shall be complied with."
We, the undersigned governance and human rights organizations working under the auspices of the Police Reforms Working Group -Kenya (PRWG-K) strongly protest this amendment that is being proposed on the following grounds:
- Under the literal rule of statutory interpretation, these words of the proposed amendment seek to limit the documents, things or information that can be shared with IPOA by officers or persons summoned to appear before the authority, and which will hinder IPOA's mandate, and also go against Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya by denying the public its' right to information.
- We would like to remind members of the National Assembly that the Evidence Act, Cap 80 of the Laws of Kenya (section 131, 132 and 139) clearly provides for the procedure of submitting privileged documents, thing or information. There is no justification for the proposed amendment in the Bill, nor any indications of the mischief that it intends to cure. This goes against one of the cardinal principles in law making which requires legislation to address a mischief or seal the existing gaps in the law. It has not been shown how the current framework that is sought to be amended impedes policing or the work of IPOA.
- IPOA's mandate is important and forms a critical part of the police reforms geared towards attaining the objects of Article 144 of the Constitution. The proposed amendment contravenes the constitution, and also violates Section 4 of the Act which states that IPOA is not subject to any person, office or authority in the performance of its functions. In addition to that, Section 6 of the Act provides that the only way the authority can commence investigation is through receipt of information from the members of the public and members of the service. If such information is not forthcoming, the work of the authority is effectively curtailed.
IPOA is a civilian movement, created by public interest and public views collected by the Police Reform Implementation Committee (PRIC). It is therefore self-defeating to declare information shared with them as being protected by public interest. In this regard, the proposed amendment is unmerited, irreconcilable with public interest, lacks the necessary threshold and in effect immobilizing to the authority.
- The Authority MUST have ample authority to provide a credible service to the people it serves. It MUST have the ability to interview all witnesses, including officers, and it MUST have access to all relevant documents needed to complete its investigations in order to be effective, and maintain the support of the people it serves.
- Finally, it is noteworthy that independence is at the heart of effectiveness of any oversight body such as IPOA. Without the political will to support independent oversight, the authority will flounder in its efforts to make the necessary changes to correct problems in the law enforcement agency that it oversees. In order for the authority to succeed, we BESEECH legislators at all levels to come out and jealously guard and uphold the constitution, resist attempts to introduce amendments aimed at satisfying individual egos rather than the greater public good and reject the proposed amendment in totality.
For more information pertaining to the subject matter, please contact Steve Biko via 0712876573 or email; sbiko@imlu.org
Press statement on the intended deportation by Kenyan authorities 0f Dong Samuel and Agrey Idri to South Sudan
According to their lawyer, they are being detained by Kenyan authorities in Nairobi Area Police Headquarters and are subject to a deportation order.
We have tried, without success, to obtain comment from the Kenyan authorities regarding the whereabouts of the two, the conditions on which they are held, the process that was involved in any decision that may have been made regarding their deportation.
Dong Samuel:
Dong Samuel, a prominent lawyer and human rights advocate, was last seen in Nairobi city centre at approximately 9:00pm on 23 January, when he was on his way to board a bus and return to his residence. He never arrived at home.
Dong Samuel left South Sudan in August 2013 due to security threats. He has been registered as a refugee in Kenya since November 2016.
From 2002 to 2013, Dong Samuel was Secretary General of the South Sudan Law Society, a South Sudanese civil society organization focused on promotion of justice, human rights and the rule of law.
Following the outbreak of South Sudan’s ongoing armed conflict in December 2013, he joined the SPLM-IO and is a member of its Human Rights and Justice Committee.
Dong Samuel is a vocal critic of the South Sudanese government and is active on Facebook and Twitter.
Aggrey Idri:
Aggrey Idri, chairman of the SPLM-IO Humanitarian Affairs Committee was last seen in Kilimani at approximately 8:00am on the morning of 24 January.Aggrey Idri is a vocal critic of the South Sudanese government and active on Facebook.
International law:
As Dong Samuel is a refugee, his deportation from Kenya would violate the international law principle of non-refoulement.
Given the serious risk of torture both would face in South Sudan, their deportation would also violate Kenya’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture
James Gatdet:
In November 2016, Kenyan authorities deported South Sudanese opposition spokesperson James Gatdet back to South Sudan in spite of his refugee status. Since his arrival in Juba, he has been held without charge at the South Sudan’s National Security Service headquarters in Juba.
James Gatdet is being held at the NSS headquarters prison since his arrival in Juba, in solitary confinement in a room approximately 3 meters by 1.5 meters large. He is not taken outside and is only provided access to sanitary facilities twice a day.
We are calling on the Kenya government:
- To disclose without delay, the place where Dong Samuel and Aggrey Idri are being held so that their families and lawyers can meet with them and arrange initial assistance.
- To make public the reasons why the two are being held and unless it can demonstrate a lawful basis for their continued detention, to release them without delay;
- To recognise and give effect to the fact that both Dong Samuel and Aggrey Idri run the risk of being subjected to torture if they are deported to South Sudan, and , therefore, to ensure that the two are not deported to that country;
- To recognise the fact that Dong Samuel enjoys refugee status in Kenya and that his deportation from Kenya would violate the international law principle of non-refoulement.
NAIROBI 25th JANUARY 2017
Signed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission
Nairobi Women March Press Release
Women, men and children in Nairobi who support women’s rights, human rights and social justice will stand up and be counted on 21 January at the Women’s March on Nairobi, a “Sister March” to the historic Women’s March taking place in Washington, D.C., on the same day. The march, in Nairobi’s Karura Forest, will highlight women’s resistance to sexism and gender inequality and their call for more progressive and inclusive governance, in Kenya, in the United States and around the world.
Loading...
The Kenya Human Rights commission to commence contempt proceedings against Fazul Mohammed and the NGO Bureau
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) is gravely concerned about an internal report generated by the NGO Coordination Board, and which the Board has shared with the media, containing adverse allegations about the financial affairs of the KHRC. For reasons explained below, the KHRC will immediately move the High Court to commence contempt of court proceedings against the CEO of the NGO Board, Mr. Fazul Mohammed, whose conduct contravenes a final judgement issued by the High Court in favour of the KHRC.
Loading...
Statement on the attacks by the NGO board against the KHRC
Through a document that was widely distributed in the media, the NGO Coordination Board accuses the Kenya Human Rights Commission, (KHRC) of serious financial and management impropriety, and also alleges that the KHRC’s current auditors PWC, and its previous, PKF, have assisted the KHRC in covering the financial impropriety.
Loading...
Final Communique of the 2016 Annual Jurists Conference
Loading...
The First National Summit on Public Benefits Organizations (PBO) Leaders
The meeting is for all PBOs working in all 47 Counties, nationally and regionally to discuss the latest developments on the commencement of the PBO Act and to agree on the way forward. Under the Public Benefits Organisations Act (2013), PBOs are defined as “organisations that provide public benefits or act in the public interest”. Public Benefits Organisations can be represented at this meeting.
Loading...