We the Kenya Transtional Justice Network (KTJN) are concerned that the embattled former Chairman of the TJRC is seeking to reclaim his position again.  This is happening when the commission, though riddled with many integrity and operational problems is supposed to wind up its work and submit its final report in May 2012.  It is now clear to the general public that Kiplagat is led by personal ambition as opposed to the greater good of the country and especially victims of human rights violations, victims he claims to care about.

Kiplagat was sworn in as the chair of the TJRC on the 3^rd of August 2009.  Immediately after his appointment, victims and human rights defenders under the umbrella of KTJN opposed this appointment and asked him to resign pending an investigation by a tribunal as provided for in the TJRC act.   This was because of his alleged links to issues expected to be investigated by the TJRC including: the Wagalla Massacres; political assassinations (especially the murder of Dr. Robert Ouko) and illegal and irregular allocation of public land (as adversely mentioned in the Ndung’u Report).

On 13^th April 2010, the rest of the TJRC commissioners petitioned the then Chief Justice Hon Evans Gicheru to form a tribunal to investigate the conduct of Mr Kiplagat. On 12^th of October 2010, the human rights organizations in Kenya under KTJN petitioned the same chief justice to set a tribunal to investigate Kiplagat.  In February 2010, the former chairpersons of the Truth Commissions from all over the world urged him to resign. All this time Kiplagat consistently refused to step aside until the chief justice set up a tribunal on the 10^th of December 2010.

It is worth noting that the government was not interested in the establishment of this tribunal thus unnecessarily delayed the process of establishing the tribunal. And indeed if there were forces seeking to scuttle the TJRC process through his appointment, it would appear that his return demonstrates their tenacity to curtail truth and justice. Could the return and continued intransigence of Kiplagat be evidence of the wider scheme by the forces of impunity to scuttle the transitional justice agenda in this country?

We reiterate our reasons for strongly opposing Kiplagat’s chairmanship in the TJRC:

1. A tribunal was established to investigate Ambassador Kiplagat in December 2010 but did not commence its work until February 2011, a delay that was neither explained nor mitigated. This was a deliberate attempt to frustrate the process from its inception. The tribunal never received the requisite support to undertake its task.
2. Kiplagat stepped aside and pledged to submit himself to the process of the tribunal but soon after mounted a legal challenge as to its validity to investigate him. His primary interest seemed to be to forestall the tribunal process and shield himself from further scrutiny as opposed to clearing his name of existing allegations.
3. While the legal challenge against the tribunal’s investigation into his past conduct may have been dispensed with through his withdrawal of the application, the substantive issues challenging his fitness as chair to the TJRC persist:

• He has been adversely mentioned and appeared in sessions regarding the Wagalla Massacre. He has been on record denying any involvement in the massacre but later conceding that he was in a delegation that toured the region during the material time and also sat in the Kenya Intelligence Committee that has been adversely mentioned in planning the massacre. Such inconsistencies, lies and potential culpability merit further scrutiny and outright disqualification.
• He will be required to appear in other thematic hearings such as that on political assassinations to provide testimony on the murder of Robert Ouko and also on illegal allocation of public land where he will be required to answer to his various mentions within the Ndung’u Land Report.

1. There are emerging reports of staff intimidation and possibilities of interfering with progress reports in which he has been adversely mentioned. He has not formally engage the commissioners or requested for a formal handover from the interim chair.

We therefore:

1. Urge the Chief Justice either extends the mandate of the former tribunal or constitute a new tribunal that will comprehensively investigate and conclude the substantive concerns raised.
2. In light of the substantive questions on his integrity, call for further reviews of his participation in other public bodies. This is in line with the requirements on integrity of public officers under the Constitution of Kenya.
3. Demand his vacation from office until he has been cleared of allegations by the tribunal constituted to investigate him.
4. Recognizing that the TJRC mandate is truth seeking, justice and reconciliation with the interest of victims at its core, we appeal to Kiplagat to honorably and morally resign in recognition of his potential to derail, delay and disrupt the transitional justice process.

THE KENYA TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE NETWORK

We hereby submit as follows:

1. First, the Preamble of the Constitution clearly states that the citizens fully recognised ‘the aspirations of all Kenyans for a government based on the essential values of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice and the rule of law.” The Preamble goes further to state that in adopting and enacting the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Kenyans were “exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country, and in so doing, Chapter 8 of the Constitution establishes the Senate. The Senate has a specific role and it is the Senate that is the bulwark for devolution in the Constitution.
2. Second, we need to recall that Kenya’s Independence Constitution had provided both for regional governments and for the Senate. However, within less than three years after independence, the Kenyatta government had done away with both the Senate and regional governments. Following this abolition of Senate in 1967 and the subsequent killing of devolution, Kenya has made several attempts at taking development to community level, but most have failed because they lacked constitutional backing and the oversight that should have been provided by Senate and regional governments.
3. Third, there is need to know the devastating effect of what Hon. Kioni and others are proposing, since it is important to consider the role of Senate as envisaged in the Constitution. Article 96 (3) of the Constitution identifies the role of Senate as being: i) to determine the allocation of national revenue among counties, as provided for in article 217, and ii) to exercise oversight over national revenue allocated to the county governments. If there is no Senate, who will negotiate with the National Assembly on how much of national revenue should be allocated to counties? Do Kenyans at community level, particularly in the less developed counties want to place the fate of their development in the hands of Members of the National Assembly, who have in the past demonstrated their inability to defend the interests of the people?
4. Fourth, and as a consequence of the above, without the Senate, Kenya will have literally killed devolution of power, because the financial fate of counties will rest solely with the National Assembly and the Executive, who have in the past demonstrated that they clearly need to be checked or overseen. Without the Senate, Kenya will be plunged back into the past they aspired to move away frommultiple trial and error decentralisation of public funds intended more for the appeasement of MPs and to provide corruption opportunities for public officials in the Executive.
5. Fifth, it is important to note that the Senate has been created to represent the counties and protect their interests, as well as those of the marginalised and special interest groups. Kenyans cannot trust the National Assembly alone to do this because their track record indicates otherwise.
6. Finally, beyond the efforts of Hon. Kioni and others, we must recall that the Executive, and in particular the Ministry of Finance has made great attempts to scuttle devolution – through influencing the composition of the Taskforce on the Devolved Government, sponsoring the drafting finance bills that weaken devolution, attempts to retain the provincial administration through draft bill titled Coordination of National Government Functions Bill, 2011, the attempted posting of county commissioners without constitutional or legal backing or even consultation with the Controller of Budget to determine whether or not salaries of such county commissioners should be provided for.

Article 3 (1) of CoK places a responsibility on ever citizen to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. As the Kenya Human Rights Commission, we reiterate that Kenyans must remain vigilant, expose these attempts and categorically reject any attempts to convolute or weaken devolution. Kenyans must remain alert to the fact that the Constitution is theirs and any attempts by members of the executive or legislature are but a distraction from what should be the diligent implementation of the Constitution.

Stay Alert: The Constitution must be Fully Implemented

Signed this Friday, 16 December 2011

____________________________

Atsango Chesoni

The Award was given to the KHRC having demonstrated the progress made in establishing systems and structures that enable the organization to work towards a clear vision. The KHRC also implemented these systems effectively in achieving targets and as a result of this is working towards realizing the results.

We also got the award for the best CSO in Community Focus, Productivity and Impact, tying with International Commission of Jurists Kenyan Chapter (ICJ-Kenya); and finally 1st Runner up in Leadership, Governance and Management.

Each year the Civil Society under the banner of the Constitution and Reform Education Consortium (CRECO) presents awards to outstanding Civil Society Organizations. The CSOYA Awards, which is in its fifth year, are given in recognition of performance, service delivery, leadership and accountability. The awards are not meant for organizations to pat themselves in the back but to motivate them to learn and improve on their performance.

This achievement is a team effort and we definitely thank all our partners, networks and coalitions in various capacities who have made our work possible. Hoyee, aluta continua!

In the course of the mission, the three commissions have sought and solicited views from various actors namely the Faith Based Organizations, Community and Civil Society Organizations, the Provincial Administration, the Police, the victims and members of the public who shared the information that informs our findings and subsequent recommendations.

These investigations are a follow-up on previous missions conducted by our respective organizations. Further, the investigations have been prompted by reports of continued violations allegedly perpetrated by the outlawed Sungusungu vigilante received by our respective organizations. Specifically, our joint mission sought information on the following issues:

1. The alleged inaction by the government security agencies to tame crime and insecurity and the alleged failure or inability of the judicial system to deal with issues of crime and insecurity in Gusii-land;
2. Concerns of rising levels of crime and insecurity in Gusiiland and the emergence of the Sungusungu vigilante group sometimes back in 2003 and whether a clear distinction can be made between Sungusungu and community policing;
3. The alleged transformation of the Sungusungu vigilante group into community policing sometimes in 2009 and the cases of gross human rights violations and criminality linked to Sungusungu acting under the guise of community policing;
4. Community perceptions and attitudes of the state and non-state actors towards Sungusungu /community policing and the way forward in addressing crime and insecurity in Gusiiland; and,
5. Challenges facing the re-integration into society of persons who have gone through the Courts and Penal Institutions.

We must state here that while we hold no brief for any criminal elements in society, we will continue to ask—as indeed we have done time and again in the past—that any issues of crime must be addressed within the clearly defined confines of the law. We are concerned that though some members of the public and government officials have informed us that Sungusungu is no longer in existence and that those who used to be members of Sungusungu are now members of Community Policing, our findings indicate that the groups’ criminal activities are still prevalent in various parts of Gusiiland.

What is more, it is worrying that there seems to be no clear distinction between Sungusungu activities and community policing. While community policing entails an approach that seeks actively to prevent, detect crime, reduce fear and improve communication between the community and police, what is taking place currently in Gusiiland is a serious perpetration of crimes and human rights violations under the guise of community policing. The following are some of the serious crimes and violations that were brought to the attention of our joint mission:

1. OVERSTEPPING COMMUNITY POLICING MANDATE

Those who purport to be acting as security providers under community policing have clearly over-stepped their mandate. For example, they are known to make arrests, carry out investigations, detain suspects in illegal holding cells and pass judgments in Kangaroo courts. Additionally, members of the public say that those purporting to be members of community policing conduct night patrols. However, some of the chairs of Community Policing we spoke to categorically denied that these allegations.

2. MURDERS OF SUSPECTED ‘CRIMINALS’

Our team was informed of cases where people who were suspected of being criminals had either been threatened or murdered. Additionally, our team was told that in some instances, the victims of these murders are denied burial rights in their homes and directives are given to their relatives to bury them at the public cemeteries in either Kisii or Nyamira towns.

3. ASSAULT & GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

The team received numerous reports of assaults perpetrated by those purporting to be members of Community Policing. A witness told the team of an incident where a man suspected of having stolen money from a relative was seriously beaten and suffered grievous bodily harm. The witness stated thus:

“They tied his hands together and they put a stick between his knees and thighs. They beat him until his testicles were ruptured. They used timber with nails at the end. The nails contributed to the rupturing of the testicles. The suspect died in September 2011 as a result of the injuries”.

It must be noted that the money purportedly stolen was later found by the said relative where it had been stashed in the house after the victim had been assaulted by members of the so-called community policing.

4. ISSUANCE OF THREATS

The team received allegations of issuance of threats by those purporting to be members of Community Policing not to report their criminal acts. The threats range from those who have been assaulted by the gang being warned against reporting assault cases to the police; holding pre-burial meetings; or burying their dead in their homes and to only bury them at designated cemeteries. Our team received copies of leaflets containing the warnings. Our team was further told that politicians, public officials as well as civilians are reported to be using Sungusungu to issue threats or assault persons believed not to be in good terms or in political agreement with the said persons.

5. ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE

Our joint mission was told of a case involving community policing members who raided the house of a suspect in Nyamataro together with police from Kisii Central Station. The suspect disappeared the following day and the High Court in a Habeus Corpus application ordered on 9^th September 2009 for production of applicant by Commissioner of Police and DCIO, Kisii. This has not been done.

6. EXTORTION OF FUNDS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Some members of the public stated that they have been paying amounts of monies suspected Sungusungu members alleging to be providing security. These amounts range from Kshs.30-150 per month per household. However, members of the community policing denied the allegation that they extort or ask for protection fees from members of the public.

7. SEX FOR PROTECTION

There were allegations of instances where those who have reported cases to community policing /Sungusungu, but have no money, have exchanged sexual in lieu of cash payments.

8. PARALLEL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The team received allegations that members of Community Policing / Sungusungu run a parallel justice system. They intervene in domestic disputes and pass judgment, including administering 40 strokes of the cane to domestic violence suspects. They also impose fines and banish offenders who have gone through the Court and Penal institutions from being re-integrated back into the community.

9. OTHER UNDERLYING ISSUES

In our assessment, land and property ownership tussles as well as strong cultural beliefs play a critical role in fuelling acts of general crime and insecurity in Gusii-land, leading to gross human rights violations, including the lynching of witches.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

From the foregoing, we the KNCHR, the KHRC and the NCIC recommend as follows:

(i)That the relevant state agencies who have abrogated their duties and responsibilities must, as a matter of urgency, rise to the occasion and provide the necessary security that will nullify the need for the local communities to resort to acts of ‘self-protection’ which inevitably lead to the violation of the law. Hence, while we take into account the right of the community to live in safe and secure environments, we must state that the responsibility of guaranteeing this right remains squarely within the mandate of the state security agencies.

(ii) We call upon the investigative arm of the security agencies to interrogate further the various issues of crime and human rights violations identified by our joint mission with the express aim of bringing an immediate cessation of further human rights violations and atrocities.

(iii)We call upon a review of the existing community policing structure in the region with particular attention being paid to issues of vetting and recruitment, adherence to the principles and mandate of community policing so that criminal elements do not operate under the cover of community policing. To this end, we call upon the Commissioner of Police to take notice of the serious lapse in the provision of security in Gusiiland and how an otherwise noble initiative like community policing has been turned into a vehicle for the perpetration of crimes and human rights violations.

(iv)We call upon the State Law Office to operationalise the Witness Protection Agency so that those who have suffered serious violations or witnessed the same can be guaranteed of security and protection should they go to our courts of law to give evidence.

(v) Finally, we call for a multi-sectoral approach involving state and non-state actors to redress the issues crime and insecurity identified by our joint mission.

Signed By:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Ngugi, Commissioner

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Mohammed Hallo

Secretary, The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davis Malombe, Deputy Executive Director

The Kenya Human Rights Commission

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Kagwe

Senior Programme Officer- Kenya Human Rights Commission

On 14^th October 2011 in a press statement while launching a preliminary report in Kisii on crime and insecurity situation in Gusiiland, the three commissions noted that though some members of the public and government officials had informed the team that Sungusungu is no longer in existence and that those who used to be members of Sungusungu are now members of Community Policing, findings indicate that the groups’ criminal activities are still prevalent in various parts of Gusiiland. The complete findings are to be published in a report tilted “Sungusungu: Merchants of Terror and Death in Kisii.”

The preliminary findings however indicate a worrying development in the Gusii situation where there seems to be no clear distinction between Sungusungu activities and community policing. The joint statement emphasized that that any issues of crime must be addressed within the clearly defined confines of the law. While community policing entails an approach that seeks actively to prevent, detect crime, reduce fear and improve communication between the community and police, what is taking place currently in Gusiiland is a serious perpetration of crimes and human rights violations under the guise of community policing.

Among the serious crimes and violations committed by the Sungusungu listed by the three commissions include:

1.  Overstepping community policing mandate for example arresting and detaining suspects in illegal holding cells and passing judgments in Kangaroo courts; 
2. Murders of suspected ‘criminals’, and in some instances denial of burial rights in their homes;
3. Assault and causing grievous bodily harm , sometimes even based on false accusation and set up;
4. Issuance of threats where in some cases politicians, public officials as well as civilians are reported to be using Sungusungu to issue threats or assault persons believed not to be in good terms or in political agreement with the said persons;
5. Enforced disappearance;
6. Extortion of funds from members of the public allegedly for payment of security services;
7. Sex for protection;
8. Parallel justice system where due course of law is interfered with and ‘punishment’ is meted out extra judiciously.

The team noted that there were underlying issues to this problem, land and property ownership tussles as well as strong cultural beliefs play a critical role in fuelling acts of general crime and insecurity in Gusii-land, being the leading cause to the these gross human rights violations.

The mission was informed by interviews by the three commissions of various actors including Faith Based Organizations, Community Based Organizations and Civil Society Organizations, the Provincial Administration, the Police, the victims and members of the public who shared the information that informs our findings and subsequent recommendations.

The report, titled Lest We Forget: The Faces of Impunity in Kenya, is based on a the KHRC’s Review of the Official Reports Project that has compiled a list of individuals recommended for further investigation or criminal proceedings in official reports on gross and systemic human rights violations as well as grand corruption. The question many people ask usually is Who Owns Kenya; in this report the big question is WHO OWES KENYA?

This project is meant to address the following gaps in truth and justice seeking:

• First, the inadequate understanding and appreciation of the level of the truth already existing in the current official and other reports;
• Second,the inadequate review, harmonization and presentation of the findings of the official and other reports over historical injustices in Kenya;
• Third,the inadequate analysis and presentation of both the patterns and perpetrators of impunity across the different regimes, reports and categories of injustices in Kenya;
• Finally are the inadequate interventions to ensure that the cross cutting findings and recommendations are applied to expose, lustrate and hold to account, the purveyors of impunity.

You can find the publication on this website through this link: LEST WE FORGET-The Faces of Impunity in Kenya

Mr. Davis Malombe - Deputy Executive Director

Mr. Malombe has served with the KHRC in various capacities most recently as a Programs Officer Research and Advocacy.
He brings to the Commission experience in policy analysis and governance matters and has an unparalleled passion for human rights activism.
He has written widely on IDPs, governance, transitional justice and human rights issues in Kenya. Davis is a member and/or a convener of a number of national and international organizations and networks including: the Internal Displacement and Advocacy Centre (IDPAC); IDPs Protection Working Group in Kenya; African Transitional Justice Network, Non-State Actors Coalition on Land Reforms; and International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) among others.

Ms.Judy Ngugi - Finance & Administration Manager

Ms. Ngugi comes to the Commission from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) where she served as Accounting Manager.
Ms. Ngugi brings to the Commission experience in both public and private sector finance and administration systems and therefore an excellent opportunity for the KHRC to learn from other sectors.
We look forward to a continued collaboration with you and trust that you will welcome their appointments in the warm spirit that you have previously extended to us.

Background

We have received complaints alleging diverse and serious human rights violations arising from administrative actions taken by the school.

We are informed that on Wednesday May 25, 2011, a Form One student came across a polythene bag containing items and a passport photo within the school compound. She showed it to a school Captain. The Captain showed the bag to two other Captains to obtain their opinion on how to address the matter.

Another student identified the passport photo as belonging to a Form Two student, who the three Captains called. She confirmed the items were hers and said they were given to her by her mother—who is believed to be a person within the Ministry of Education—for protection.

The school Housekeeper was then informed and advised the Captains to report the matter to the Deputy Principal. The Deputy Principal referred the matter to the Principal, Mrs Ruinge, who decided to send home the student who had admitted to being the owner of the items.

The mother of the Form Two student sent home then, allegedly, went to the school and in disregard of laid down administrative and disciplinary procedures, demanded to interrogate the three Captains.

On the evening of Monday May 30, 2011, the mother verbally assaulted the three Captains, demanded that they write apology letters giving their index numbers, admission numbers and signatures and threatened them with being “thrown behind bars and locked up for life.” Under duress, the three Captains wrote the said apology letters, which were initially taken away by the mother.

Two of the Captains were then summoned to appear before two representatives of the Board of Governors for disciplinary measures to be taken against them. The Principal said she would deal with the two “appropriately.”

She suspended them on June 6, 2011. The students reported the matter to the KHRC through their parents, in the course of which other allegations of human rights violations emerged and the KHRC wrote to the Principal seeking re-admission for the students and an investigation into the allegations of human rights violations. She has since refused to readmit one of them until she withdraws the complaint made against the school through the KHRC.

Our Concerns

We are concerned about the manner in which this issue has been handled by the school’s administration, contrary to the best interest of the children as stipulated in Section 4(2) of the Children’s Act and Article 53(2) of the Constitution. The child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child and must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies.

In our opinion, the school deviated from this principle by inter alia allowing an external party (the mother) to interfere with administrative and disciplinary procedures at the school. The Principal also failed to carry out investigations into the allegations and did not call in the parents of the two Captains before taking any administrative action.

Instead, she allegedly allowed a parent into the school to verbally assault and threaten the two Captains in her presence without alerting their parents and advising them to be present. Furthermore, that parent was initially allegedly allowed to take away the apology letters written by the two Captains instead of having them filed in the students’ official records.

As the Principal, she is expected to act as a custodian of the children placed under her care and must at all times act in the best interest of the children. Her failure to protect the students resulted in exposing them to verbal assault, threats and emotional/mental distress in light of the fact that they are scheduled to sit for their mock and Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examinations this year.

As a result of being wrongfully accused and fearing for her future, one of the students was hospitalised.

We note that:

1. The school’s administration disowned its earlier decision of suspending the student found with the items and instead apportioned all blame to two of the prefects who reported the matter for advice.
2. The Principal had shirked her responsibility of protecting the two prefects by allowing a parent to verbally assault and threaten them.
3. It is unclear whether all members of the Board of Governors have been fully briefed on all the matter, meaning that the Board’s capacity to exercise oversight over the Principal is uncertain.
4. All the students involved in the matter who had been earlier suspended for reporting the matter have been re-admitted except one, whose conditions for re-admission include:

• Withdrawing the KHRC’s letter of June 6, 2011;
• Writing apology letters to: a) the school’s administration for indiscipline and incitement; and b) VN (a minor), the student initially suspended;
• Promising to be of good behaviour henceforth.

These conditions are unreasonable and could be construed as preventing the student from raising her concerns regarding the Principal’s handling of the matter at hand so as to prevent the resolution of these concerns.

Our demands

1. We demand that all suspended students be re-admitted unconditionally forthwith.
2. The Department of Children’s Services was conducting investigations at the school into the matter at hand and other allegations of human rights violations, including defilement of some students by a teacher other arbitrary suspensions on flimsy grounds. We therefore demand that the findings of these investigations be made public.
3. We call on the Permanent Sectary, Ministry of Education and all relevant authorities—the Board of Governors, Loreto Convent Limuru Girls’ High School, Cardinal John Njue and the Catholic Archdiocese of Nairobi, and the Secretary, Teachers’ Service Commission (TSC)—to institute investigations into these allegations to establish the truth about them and, if true, to take appropriate action(s) with the persons responsible and ensure policies and procedures are in place/reviewed to prevent any possible recurrence.

Signed:

For the KHRC,

L.Muthoni Wanyeki
Executive Director
Kenya Human Rights Commission

Greetings from the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the KHRC’s new Executive Director, Atsango Chesoni.

Ms Chesoni is an lawyer who has worked for the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA)-Kenya, where she initiated the annual status of women’s human rights report. She has spent many years consulting on civil society in Kenya and within the region—focused on governance, human rights (including women’s human rights) and the law.

She was nominated by the African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET) to represent the women’s movement in the constitutional negotiations known as the Bomas process.

And, most recently, she served as the Vice Chair of the Committee of Experts (CoE) that ushered in our new Constitution.

Ms Chesoni takes over from L. Muthoni Wanyeki, who has led the KHRC since 2007. Ms. Wanyeki led the KHRC at a time of great challenge to Kenya, especially through the post-elections violence and the work of reconstruction and reform thereafter. Her vision, courage, and devotion to human rights—along with those of the great team at the KHRC and the human rights community at large—helped put Kenya back on track.

Her humility and consultative leadership style are a beacon for the human rights community in Kenya and the region. She taught all of us how to practice and think about human rights in the most trying circumstances. Personally, I have been humbled and privileged to work with her. She leaves the KHRC a stronger organisation than she found it.

Ms Wanyeki, whose term with the KHRC officially ends in September 2011, is going abroad to pursue graduate studies and her Doctorate. The Board, management and staff of the KHRC will miss her greatly. But she will remain one of us—no one who has been a member of the KHRC family ever leaves it.

The KHRC’s Board, management and staff are thrilled to have Ms Chesoni with us.

She begins work on July 18, 2011—and will spend four weeks working with Ms Wanyeki, taking over fully on August 1, 2011, with Ms Wanyeki still being on call for a further two weeks. We all aim for the transition to be as seamless as possible.

We wish her all the best as she starts her journey with us—and invite you to do the same. She can be reached at: achesoni@khrc.or.ke. She will also, no doubt, be contacting some of your directly shortly.

We look forward to continued partnership with all our partners, friends associates and all our publics under her leadership.

Sincerely,

Professor Makau Mutua,

Chair of the Board of Directors