“That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.” – Martin Luther King Jr
When my colleagues and I at the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) learnt about the disappearance in June 2016 of our comrade advocate Willie Kimani, his client and their taxi driver while in police custody, our hearts sank.
We knew without doubt that the chances of finding them alive, leave alone finding their bodies for a decent burial, were slim at best. Unfortunately, many Kenyans and friends of Kenya who followed the unfolding drama did not share our fears. They held on to the hope that the three would still be found alive and well.
Apparently, Willie and his colleagues seem to have shared our fear, as we came to learn later from the SOS note he sent from the container cell at Syokimau Police Post before they were bludgeoned to death. This is the tragedy of policing in Kenya, where hundreds of citizens, mainly young men, have been victims of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions at the hands of law enforcement agencies over the past decade. They have disappeared or been executed mainly because authorities have labelled them criminal suspects ‘who deserve to die.’ In the process many innocent lives have been lost through the actions of those mandated to uphold the law.
Various research studies and surveys in the past few years indicate a deep, systemic problem that has spiralled out of control. According to research by the IMLU conducted in seven major government morgues in the Kenya covering a five year period (2009-2013) a total of 1,868 persons had died from bullets, 67% (1,252) of them having been killed by police officers and only 14% by criminals. Of the total who had died from police bullets, a worrying 67.7% (1,264) were killed by police in unclear circumstances, with one unique police killing where the corpse had a total of 12 bullets. Only 69 or 3.7% of the 1,252 shot dead by police were armed, putting into question the main reason given by police to shoot to kill. Though this report received widespread media coverage and wide support from various stakeholders who called for immediate action to remedy the situation, it received strong condemnation and denial by the National Police Service, with their spokesperson Zipporah Mboroki saying, “Those people [IMLU] have only found the research they want to find. They have their statistics and we have our own.”
Denial Has Become Standard Practice
Unfortunately this state of denial has become standard practice – a practice of sheer unaccountability since various demands by the media, CSOs and other stakeholders have yielded no fruit, with police having failed to provide official statistics of civilians killed by police whether legally or extrajudicially.
Indeed, the annual police Crime Statistics have year in year out failed to include numbers of police officers involved in crime. There are allegations that this information while available in the draft reports by the National Crime Research Centre is always deleted from the final report at the behest of the police high command.
The tragedy of our nation is that this problem is bigger than police violence, with many media reports of brutal spousal violence and mob killings of criminal suspects, and thousands of cases of unreported violence, threats of violence and brutalisation of residents of poor urban neighbourhoods by criminal gangs and police officers
Four years after the June 2014 IMLU report, this trend continues with IMLU’s daily vigilance reports reporting a total of 489 civilian killings by police for 2014-2016 (186 in 2014; 126 in 2015; 144 in 2016) and 33 for first three months of 2017. Of the total, over 80% were extrajudicial executions. Reports from other organisations including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch indicate the situation is deteriorating.
The tragedy of our nation is that this problem is bigger than police violence, with many media reports of brutal spousal violence and mob killings of criminal suspects, and thousands of cases of unreported violence, threats of violence and brutalisation of residents of poor urban neighbourhoods by criminal gangs and police officers who patrol the narrow paths that crisscross these areas.
Various studies including IMLU’s 2015 collaborative research with Dignity and University of Edinburg on urban violence in poor urban neighbourhoods showed that 25% of the 500 respondents had suffered various forms of violence in the previous 12 months. What shocked the researchers was that most of the violence was inflicted on victims within the household, by organised criminal gangs at 46% followed closely by the police at 26%! This is the scenario that applies to many rural and urban neighbourhoods where criminal gangs and police rampage, terrorise, intimidate and instil fear into people’s lives, leading to a growing acceptance of the police ‘tough on crime’ policy that has now metamorphosed into police officers’ illegal use of firearms, shoot-to-kill on sight, strangulations, torture and bludgeoning to death, abduction and enforced disappearances.
In one of the latest cases, in Eastleigh in Nairobi on March 30 2017, residents including business leaders who were willing to speak openly dismissed those protesting against the police executions as non-residents who did not know what residents in Eastleigh were experiencing. Just days after this, the media reported that AP officers in Utawala area in Nairobi had stopped and shot dead the son of a Senior Superintendent of Police who had been sent by his mother to buy meat at the nearby shopping centre. According to media accounts the young man was forced to sit down and shot eight times as he pleaded that he was the son of a police officer and was headed to the shops.
Again, on April 20 2017, police shot yet another young man, this time a deaf teenager who witness accounts indicate was rummaging for items to sell from Nairobi’s largest dumpsite when a police officer called out to him. Being deaf and therefore unable to hear and respond to the call, the officer shot him in cold blood and claimed he was an armed suspect ‘who deserved to die.’ And the story of the killings goes on and on ….every day!
Acceptance of extra-judicial executions is a licence for every poor soul who feels aggrieved and is unable to rise above the grievance and provide a rational solution to it, to bludgeon their next door neighbour to death
Acceptance of extra-judicial executions is a licence for every poor soul who feels aggrieved and is unable to rise above the grievance and provide a rational solution to it, to bludgeon their next door neighbour to death for one transgression or the other, since we have suspended the rule of law that is the essence of democracy.
The Culture of Violence Is a Deadly Panadol
The culture of violence has been proven unproductive in the medium and long term – just a temporary relief, a Panadol to soothe the pain, but disastrous in the long run. It has been argued in this country before that the late John Michuki, the one of ‘rattling the snake’ fame, was successful as National Security Minister because he ‘finished off’ the Mungiki menace by authorising the mass murders of the sect’s members, especially in his backyard of Murang’a County. But we forget that the Mungiki thrived in the first place because they had been embraced as useful tool in politics during the last days of the Kanu era and the initial years of the post-Kanu era, as the errand boys of the powers that be. We also know that the mass killings only led to a temporary ceasefire and the metamorphosing of the gang into other forms, as we witness today
These are just two of many situations that are an illustration of what can go wrong when we set aside the rule of law and embrace the Hobbesian state where life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ If this is what we yearn for when we become cheerleaders for systemically rogue police actions, then Hobbes warns us that we must be prepared for the consequences: ‘Where every man is enemy to every man; and wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them with.’
When we give licence to police officers to depart from the dictates of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 that envisages a National Police Service that ‘strives for the highest standards of professionalism and discipline among its members; to prevent corruption and promote and practise transparency and accountability; comply with constitutional standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we give them a licence to become criminals accountable to nobody but themselves!
‘Apart from the existence of crime that has led the public to acquiesce to police impunity there are other major factors that have led us where we are today.’
Among the first ones is the paralysis in police reforms since the 1960s when the first police reform initiative was made to the latest and boldest attempt through the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The National Police Service Commission mandated to clean up and professionalise the Police Service through a transitional vetting process has excelled not only in failing to execute its own mandate but in happily watching as that mandate is whittled down by the Executive through legislation without even a whimper from its end. The Commission allowed over 20,000 new officers to be recruited without following the Recruitment Regulations the Commission has developed and gazetted, and been unable to play its rightful role in reviewing and approving promotions recommended by the Service Board.
It has been argued in this country before that the late John Michuki was successful as National Security Minister because he ‘finished off’ the Mungiki menace by authorising the mass murders of the sect’s members. But we forget that the Mungiki thrived in the first place because they had been embraced as useful tool in politics
Having received many public and CSO submissions on human-rights violations by individual officers and spent over Ksh300 million on the vetting process, there is nothing to show with regard to ridding the service of human-rights violators. In fact, some of the senior officers about whom complaints were received on human-rights violations have ended up placed in charge of the formation of new recruits or at other senior policy making levels! No wonder then that even with over 40,000 new officers appointed in the past four years of the current government, we have yet to see a change of attitude and behaviour among the rank and file. Three years into the vetting process, no single officer has been dismissed from the force or prosecuted on account of human-rights violations, a situation that has deeply frustrated the many victims and families who have submitted their complaints. The vetting process has become so opaque that the country must take a decisive and immediate step to stop this circus going on for any longer.
Where Are the County Policing Authorities?
The other main factor driving these atrocities is the dire absence of leadership at the ministerial level when it comes to denouncing those involved in criminal activity, with ministry officials and the Cabinet secretary mainly in support of deploying more hardware and tough crime policies that do nothing to bring about a meaningful change of behaviour and attitude among the police or promote public participation and partnerships in policing, two key ingredients towards lasting public safety and security.
Four years after the enactment of the national Police Service Act 2011 and the setting up of county governments, the ministry has failed to gazette regulations to guide the establishment of County Policing Authorities and key platforms for public-police co-operation in crime prevention and response. Instead, ad hoc measures like Nyumba Kumi that are neither anchored in policy nor in law continue to be implemented with minimal exchequer support. Other reforms like transferring authority to incur expenditure to Officers Commanding Police Stations who are in charge of operations continue to face resistance from the police high command, leaving operations with minimal resources like fuel for effective crime prevention and response capacities.
The National Police Service Commission mandated to clean up and professionalise the Police Service through a transitional vetting process has excelled not only in failing to execute its own mandate but in happily watching as that mandate is whittled down through legislation
On the other hand, independent police oversight mechanisms like the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the police Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) continue to face major challenges from within government and the NPS. While the IPOA board and staff have done a fairly good job with the successful investigation and prosecution of a number of cases of police violations, they are yet to get the requisite support from the executive and the NPS high command.
The IAU on the other hand is yet to take off, having been denied the requisite financial and infrastructural support to spearhead accountability from within, even though conventional wisdom has it that institutional transformation is best guaranteed in the long term when championed from within, when your internal champions gain traction and support from the senior leadership
As we approach the August 2017 general election, it is critical for all stakeholders to place policing reform at the top of the national agenda as we await a new government in September. This, I believe, will require a national conference on security sector reform to refocus the agenda on what this country gave itself with the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010: A police service that embraces professionalism and protection of human rights.
 Guns: Our Security: Our Dilemma, Independent Medico-Legal Unit, Nairobi, 2014.
 The Daily Telegraph: Kenyans five times more likely to be shot dead by police than by criminals, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10941227/Kenyans-five-times-more-likely-to-be-shot-dead-by-police-than-by-criminals.html;
 The Daily Telegraph June
 The Star, IPOA probes APs over killing of top police boss son in Utawala, http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/04/12/ipoa-probes-aps-over-killing-of-top-police-boss-son-in-utawala_c1542697 , April 12th 2017.
Support The Elephant.
The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.
Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.
Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Being nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine grass-roots legitimacy but it is hard not to suspect that some of the losers in the nominations process might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn.
Who won Kenya’s “nominations”, the tense and often unpredictable political process through which parties select which candidates they want to represent them in the general election scheduled for 9 August? That may sound like a silly question. Social media is full of photographs of smiling candidate clutching their certificates of nomination—surely we need to look no further for the winners?
But maybe we do. Beyond the individual candidates in the contests for nominations, there are other winners. One may be obvious: it seems the general feeling is that Deputy President William Ruto came out better from the nominations than did his principal rival in the presidential race, former opposition leader Raila Odinga—about which more below. However, for some, coming out on top in the nominations may prove a poisoned chalice. Where nominations are seen to have been illegitimate, candidates are likely to find that losing rivals who stand as independents may be locally popular and may gain sympathy votes, making it harder for party candidates to win the general election. This means that there are often some less obvious winners and losers.
One reason for this is that nominations shape how voters think about the parties and who they want to give their vote to, come the general election. Research that we conducted in 2017, including a nationally representative survey of public opinion on these issues, found that citizens who felt that their party’s nomination process had not been legitimate were less likely to say that they would vote in the general election. In other words, disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out. In 2017, this appeared to disadvantage Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose nomination process was generally seen to have been more problematic—although whether this is because they were, or rather because this is how they were depicted by the media, is hard to say.
In the context of a tight election in 2022, popular perceptions of how the nominations were managed may therefore be as significant for who “wins” and “loses” as the question of which individuals secured the party ticket.
Why do parties dread nominations?
The major parties dreaded the nominations process—dreaded it so much, in fact, that despite all their bold words early on about democracy and the popular choice (and despite investments in digital technology and polling staff), most of the parties tried pretty hard to avoid primary elections as a way of deciding on their candidates. In some cases that avoidance was complete: the Jubilee party gave direct nominations to all those who will stand in its name. Other parties held some primaries—Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) seems to have managed most—but in many cases they turned to other methods.
That is because of a complicated thing about parties and elections in Kenya. It is widely assumed—and a recent opinion poll commissioned by South Consulting confirms this—that when it comes to 9 August most voters will decide how to cast their ballot on the basis of individual candidates and not which party they are standing for. Political parties in Kenya are often ephemeral, and people readily move from one to another. But that does not mean that political parties are irrelevant. They are symbolic markers with emotive associations – sometimes to particular ideas, sometimes to a particular regional base. ODM, for example, has been linked both with a commitment to constitutional reform and with the Luo community, most notably in Nyanza. So the local politician who wants to be a member of a county assembly will be relying mostly on their personal influence and popularity—but they know that if they get a nomination for a party which has that kind of emotive association, it will smoothen their path.
Disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out.
This means that multiple candidates vie for each possible nomination slot. In the past, that competition has always been expensive, as rival aspirants wooed voters with gifts. It occasionally turned violent, and often involved cheating. Primary elections in 2013 and 2017 were messy and chaotic, and were not certain to result in the selection of the candidate most likely to win the general election. From the point of view of the presidential candidates, there are real risks to the primary elections their parties or coalitions oversee: the reputational damage due to chaos and the awareness that local support might be lost if a disgruntled aspirant turns against the party.
This helps to explain why in 2022 many parties made use of direct nominations—variously dressed up as the operation of consensus or the result of mysterious “opinion polls” to identify the strongest candidate. What that really meant was an intensive process of promise-making and/or pressure to persuade some candidates to stand down. Where that did not work, and primaries still took place, the promise-making and bullying came afterwards—to stop disappointed aspirants from turning against the party and standing as independents. The consequence of all that top-down management was that the nominations saw much less open violence than in previous years.
So who won, and who lost, at the national level?
Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates. That brings us to the big national winners and losers of the process. Odinga—and his ODM party—have come out rather bruised. They have been accused of nepotism, bribery and of ignoring local wishes. This is a particularly dangerous accusation for Odinga, as it plays into popular concerns that, following his “handshake” with President Kenyatta and his adoption as the candidate of the “establishment”, he is a “project” of wealthy and powerful individuals who wish to retain power through the backdoor after Kenyatta stands down having served two-terms in office. In the face of well-publicised claims that Odinga would be a “remote controlled president” doing the bidding of the Kenyatta family and their allies, the impression that the nominations were stage-managed from on high in an undemocratic process was the last thing Azimio needed.
Moreover, perhaps because Odinga seems to have been less active than his rival in personally intervening to mollify aggrieved local politicians, the ODM nominations process seems to have left more of a mess. That was compounded by complications in the Azimio la Umoja/One Kenya Alliance Coalition Party (we’ll call it Azimio from now on, for convenience). Where Azimio “zoned”—that is, agreed on a single candidate from all its constituent parties—disappointed aspirants complained. Where it did not zone, and agreed to let each party nominate its own candidate for governor, MP and so on, then smaller parties in the coalition complained that they would face unfair competition come the general election. That is why the leaders of some of these smaller groups such as Machakos Governor Alfred Mutua made dramatic (or theatrical, depending on your view) announcements of their decision to leave Azimio and support Ruto.
Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates.
So Ruto looks like a nomination winner. But his success comes with a big price tag. His interventions to placate disgruntled aspirants involved more than soothing words. A new government will have lots of goodies to distribute to supporters—positions in the civil service and parastatals, diplomatic roles, not to mention business opportunities of many kinds. But the bag of goodies is not bottomless, and it seems likely that a lot of promises have been made. Ruto’s undoubted talents as an organizer and deal-maker have been useful to him through the nominations—but those deals may prove expensive for him, and for Kenya, if he wins the presidential poll.
Money, politics, and the cost of campaigns
Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword. In the short term, many of them will have saved considerable money: depending on exactly when the deal was done, they will have been spared some days of campaign expenses—no need to fuel cars, buy airtime for bloggers, pay for t-shirts and posters, and hand out cash. But that will be a brief respite. The disappointed rivals who have gone independent will make the campaigns harder for them—and likely more expensive. The belief that they were favoured by the party machinery may mean that voter expectations are higher when it comes to handouts and donations on the campaign trail. And the fact they were nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine their grass-roots legitimacy.
Others may experience a similar delayed effect. Among the short-term losers of the nominations will have been some of the “goons” who have played a prominent physical role in previous nominations: their muscular services were largely not required (although there were exceptions). The printers of posters and t-shirts will similarly have seen a disappointing nominations period (although surely they will have received enough early orders to keep them happy, especially where uncertainty over the nomination was very prolonged). The providers of billboard advertising may have seen a little less demand than they had hoped for, although they too seem to have done quite well from selling space to aspirants who—willingly or not—did not make it to the primaries. But where the general election will be fiercely contested, entrepreneurs will likely make up any lost ground as the campaigns get going. In these cases, competition has been postponed, not avoided.
Those in less competitive wards, constituencies or counties—the kind in which one party tends to dominate in the general election—are unlikely to be able to make up for lost time. These “one-party” areas may be in shorter supply in 2022 than in the past, due to the way that the control of specific leaders and alliances over the country’s former provinces has fragmented, but there will still be some races in which it is obvious who will win, and so the campaigns will be less heated.
Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword.
More definite losers are the parties themselves. In some ways, we could say they did well as institutions, because they were spared the embarrassment of violent primaries. But the settling of many nominations without primaries meant not collecting nomination fees from aspirants in some cases, and refunding them in others. That will have cost parties a chunk of money, which they won’t get back. That may not affect the campaigns much—the money for campaigns flows in opaque and complex ways that may not touch the parties themselves. But it will affect the finances of the parties as organizations, which are often more than a little fragile.
Are the losers actually the biggest winners?
Some losers, however, are really big winners. Think about those candidates who would not have won competitive primaries but were strong enough to be able to credibly complain that they had been hard done by due to the decision to select a rival in a direct process. In many cases, these individuals were able to extract considerable concessions in return for the promise not to contest as independents, and so disrupt their coalition’s best laid plans. This means that many of the losers—who may well have been defeated anyway—walked away with the promise of a post-election reward without the expense and bother of having to campaign up until the polls.
It is hard not to suspect that some of them might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn. In fact, some of them may have been aiming at this all along. For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome. Instead of spending the next three months in an exhausting round of funerals, fund-raisers and rallies, constantly worrying about whether they have enough fifty (or larger) shilling notes to hand out and avoiding answering their phones, they can sit back and wait for their parastatal appointment, ambassadorship, or business opportunity.
For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome.
For these individuals, the biggest worry now is not their popularity or campaign, but simply the risk that their coalition might not win the presidential election, rendering the promises they have received worthless. Those whose wishes come true will be considerably more fortunate—and financially better off—than their colleagues who made it through the nominations but fall at the final hurdle of the general election.
Separating the winners of the nominations process from the losers may therefore be harder than it seems.
Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.
The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.
Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.
According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.
The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.
What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.
Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.
Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.
Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.
As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.
While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.
Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.
“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.
Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.
Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.
Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.
The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.
Labour migration as climate mitigation
you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed
Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.
It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.
Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.
The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.
Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.
Reparations include No Borders
“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman
Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”
Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debt, unfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheid, labour exploitation, and border securitisation.
It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.
Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.
The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.
Culture2 weeks ago
Creolizing Rosa Luxemburg – Beyond, and Against, the Conventional
Op-Eds4 days ago
Why Opinion Polls May Not Always Predict Election Outcomes in Kenya
Podcasts4 days ago
Decolonising Kenyan Food and Farming Systems – Part 1
Podcasts4 days ago
Decolonising Kenyan Food and Farming Systems – Part 2
Long Reads14 hours ago
Is Decolonization More Than a Buzzword?
Op-Eds18 hours ago
A Just Energy Transition
Reflections19 hours ago
Will We in Kenya Ever Respect Each Other’s Bodies, Lives and Rights?
Ideas17 hours ago
Decoloniality and the Kenyan Academy: A Pipe Dream?