Connect with us

Politics

Power Struggles: Unmasking the Thieves behind the KPLC Heist

Published

on

POWER STRUGGLES: Unmasking the thieves behind the KPLC heist
Download PDFPrint Article

In Kenya, corruption conjures up images of a favourite pair of well-worn and spit-polished shoes that one cannot bear to throw out. We roll the word on our tongues and give it pet names, such as scandals, hustling, deals, cat-walking, growing legs, eating and kitu kidogo, to name a few. The word “theft” is rarely used in public because it would entail naming the thieves and allowing ourselves to experience the full extent of the violation, complete with a sense of guilty silence and complicity. The euphemisms we use ensure that we never unmask the perpetrators beyond the frontline scapegoats, who in any case, almost always get off scot-free.

Now, a true story:

An 80-year-old lady sits in her daughter’s living room and asks animatedly, “What did Twitter say today? Eh heh? Oooh, I really want to thank Twitter for helping me. I have been suffering so much that I wished I was back in the days of ukoloni, where things worked, at least. . .” That this old mama can long nostalgically for the good ol’ days of colonialism is indeed a damning indictment on the state of Energy Capture in Kenya today.

This pensioner, who is convinced that Twitter is an actual person, had been faithfully paying her “lifeline consumer” electricity bill – consistent at Sh1,000 every month – for five years until it inexplicably leaped up to an eye-watering Sh62,000, resulting in the summary disconnection of her electricity. Fortunately, and in response to an online alert, an off-grid solar power distributor has since provided a domestic solution for her. Pro bono. However, pro bono solutions – to fill the gap created by fraudulent bills – cannot be the solution for the more than 6.6 million electricity consumers in Kenya today.

The #SwitchOffKPLC campaign

Since January 2018, the Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) has found itself in the throes of an Alamo-type siege advanced by an organically mobilised and extremely angry battalion of Kenyans from all walks of life in a highly political but absolutely non-partisan, non-class based and non-ethnicised action for Energy Justice.

The #SwitchOffKPLC campaign that started on Twitter and has since spread through wider social media spaces has unleashed an unprecedented and massive outcry against KPLC following nine consecutive months of shocking and fraudulent fleecing of electricity consumers. This campaign has partly been fuelled by KPLC’s “pay-first-ask-questions-later” motto, which left many consumers with inflated bills that they were forced to pay to avoid being disconnected.

With more than a thousand detailed emails sent to the SwitchOff hotline and thousands more shared online, the trends demonstrate how electricity consumers have been pistol-whipped half to death by these rabid cartels that prowl the hallways of Kenya’s energy sector. These cartels hide behind endless technical jargon and are fronted by ruthless “customer care” and field staff. Consumers are more than ever aware of how it is that they are misused and abused victims of an equal opportunity heist that is perfected year in, year out.

With more than a thousand detailed emails sent to the SwitchOff hotline and thousands more complaints shared online, the trends demonstrate how electricity consumers have been pistol-whipped half to death by rabid cartels that prowl the hallways of Kenya’s energy sector.

What is powerful about the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign is the relatability of the theft. When ordinary Kenyans attempt to fathom corruption scandals that are in the millions and billions, the zeroes become far too many to compute but this is not because we are stupid; it is rather because we have been traumatised to the point of absolute numbness. Or cynicism. The theft is therefore rendered abstract and quickly placed aside. What the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign does is that it highlights, in simple terms, the extra tens or hundreds and thousands of shillings that individual Kenyans are forced to part with for no reason other than blatant theft. And what an eye-opener it has been. Consumers are fed up. They are acting.

Unholy trinity

Let us start at the beginning.

The 96-year-old Kenya Power and Lighting Company (which has been rebranded as Kenya Power), is one of the oldest monopolies in Kenya. Kenyans have been born, lived and died paying monthly dues – unquestioningly – to this behemoth of a parastatal that has always been quick to remind them that electricity is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any moment for any number of reasons. With a 50.1 per cent government stake and approximately nine other shareholders owning between 0.0065 and 1.46 per cent of the company, KPLC is de facto controlled by a tightly-knit group of actors, said to include Mama Ngina, the mother of President Uhuru Kenyatta, and some well-known, self-styled tycoons.

The KPLC trinity is completed by the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) and the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO). KenGen, KETRACO and KPLC are responsible, respectively, for the generation, transmission and distribution/sale of geothermal, hydro, wind, fuel oil, biomass and gas turbine electricity in Kenya. Other collaborators include the Geothermal Development Company (GDC), the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) and the Rural Electrification Authority (REA). The Electricity Regulatory Commission (ERC) is responsible for establishing and adjusting a dizzying array of fixed and variable tariffs that form the pricing for pre- and post-paid electricity uptake in Kenya. These bodies fall under the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MoEP) that has executive oversight over all operations related to electricity generation in Kenya. Alongside the trinity and regulator are the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) that produce diesel-powered thermal and wind energy for sale to KPLC (the sole distributor) under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).

Notwithstanding periodic recommendations and gaps analyses, Kenya’s electricity outlook appears bright, with a 2020 projected on-grid capacity of 5,040MW up from 2,295MW in 2015. At least that’s what glossy annual reports, technical assessments and public relations jamborees say. With all the right sounds being made about renewable and sustainable energy – including the non-renewal of [unsustainable] diesel thermal IPP contracts (which mean nothing because some of the IPP contracts run through 2032), “Last Mile” connectivity, rural electrification and affordable off-grid solutions – one might wonder why electricity consumers are up in arms.

Enter the murky and less rosy side of electricity generation that has for decades relied on the ignorance of consumers to play around with tariffs that correlate with the type of power being generated. Despite on-paper and even infrastructurally tangible and renewable energy projects, IPPs that run diesel-powered thermal stations, as well as the recently signed Sh200 billion Lamu Coal Power Station, enjoy disproportionate PPA preferential treatment by KPLC. This means that wind, hydro and geothermal electricity remain unused or underutilised with “capacity charges” that accrue to consumers regardless.

Notwithstanding periodic recommendations and gaps analyses, Kenya’s electricity outlook appears bright, with a 2020 projected on-grid capacity of 5,040MW up from 2,295MW in 2015. At least that’s what glossy annual reports, technical assessments and public relations jamborees say.

Lake Turkana Wind Power is one such example where Sh75 billion has been spent to construct the largest wind farm in Africa covering 40,000 acres and set to produce 310MW, with possible corporate profits of up to Sh136 billion over the next 20 years. Although this is an ostensibly clean and renewable energy venture, the fact remains that this project was undertaken without due consideration of and consultation with the local communities of Laisamis constituency in Marsabit County, which resulted in a 2016 law suit filed against the investors and the Marsabit County Government. The judges threw out the case in April 2018 on “technical grounds”, showing once again that big bucks trump local communities. All the time. Which makes us wonder whether our quest for justice isn’t, after all, quixotic.

Through deliberately poor diligence on the part of the MoEP and the National Land Commission (NLC), the 428km-long power line from Loiyangalani to Suswa is yet to be completed by KETRACO, with disastrous penalties for consumers who have so far paid Sh5.7 billion in “deemed energy” fines, with a further monthly fine of Sh1 billion starting in July 2018 until the power line is complete. If we study the ministry’s role in the signing of contracts with the now bankrupt Spanish company, Isolux, and the subsequent awarding of a new Sh9.6 billion contract to a Chinese firm – paid for by yours truly – you will suffer many sleepless nights and begin to be filled with a belly-rumbling rage. Might I add that since 2015, some Chinese investors have also been eyeing the expansion of wind power ventures in Marsabit. Be very, very afraid.

The shocking disregard for local communities, be it in terms of consultation, socio-environmental impact or the right to draw down from the profitability of energy/extractive ventures, is evidenced right across the board in places like Turkana (where oil has further complicated matters) and the god-awful Lamu Coal Power Station, which threatens (for the sake of the greed of a few investors) a pristine ecosystem, a globally recognised World Heritage location and the livelihoods of some of the oldest East African coastal communities.

If we study the ministry’s role in the signing of contracts with the now bankrupt Spanish company, Isolux, and the subsequent awarding of a new Sh9.6 billion contract to a Chinese firm – paid for by yours truly – you will suffer many sleepless nights and begin to be filled with a belly-rumbling rage.

Oh, and we haven’t even begun to engage with the hare-brained scheme that is the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board. The investors (who we will tackle very soon) include a mishmash of Kenyan companies, bilateral partners, international corporations and multilateral financial institutions – all of who come with glib development and partnership-speak and a feigned concern for the people of Kenya.

Cartels and robber barons

To understand how the ordinary Kenyan is being used to finance these get-rich-quick schemes, it is important to note that under the 2018 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and under Uhuru Kenyatta’s “Big Four” plan, taxpayers will fund an annual amount of Sh100 billion over a period of 25 years (a total of Sh2.14 trillion) to 20 private power projects contrary to the law and without regard for electricity consumers and taxpayers’ rights. These and other mind boggling amounts are stealthily conveyanced through the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) that has deliberately designed loopholes perfect for such disbursements. Therefore, it becomes clear – despite the clean energy jargon – that there will have to be a sustained and systematic sabotage of the generation and transmission of cheaper, cleaner electricity for sale to consumers in order to justify the Sh2.4 trillion. We are already experiencing this because even in the face of heavy rains and resultant increase in hydro power capacity, our electricity bills continue to rise. The voracious diesel-driven appetites of the IPPs must be fed. Profits must be made.

When we consider that Kenya is one of the top seven most expensive power producers in Africa, which in addition to burdening consumers, is a serious impediment to the growth of local industry and a deterrent to foreign investment, it is not rocket science to compute how our real economic potential will never be fully realised, as it has already been sacrificed on the altars of numerous cartels.

Is your skin crawling yet?

Dig a little deeper and the pus of collusion, subterfuge and theft will begin to ooze freely, wafting its putrid stench across the landscape of consumers already heavily burdened by a rapidly encroaching recession and incredibly high costs of living. Meanwhile, the Energy Regulatory Commission, rather than providing ethical checks and balances, appears to be colluding with the MoEP, IPPs and KPLC to ensure the highest possible electricity tariffs, which are further inflated at the point of billing and enforced in an illogical yet draconian manner on frustrated and desperate consumers. The collusion exposes an intricate network of IPPs and KPLC contractors whose true owners are hidden behind layers of front-end companies whose trails often terminate abroad. Despite the seemingly iron-clad wall of secrecy, inside informers continue to share details with well-placed whistleblowers who are dedicated to alerting consumers, the media and relevant arms of government.

When we consider that Kenya is one of the top seven most expensive power producers in Africa, which in addition to burdening consumers, is a serious impediment to the growth of local industry and a deterrent to foreign investment, it is not rocket science to compute how our real economic potential will never be fully realised, as it has already been sacrificed on the altars of numerous cartels.

The integrity questions worth asking are: 1) Who are the real owners and beneficiaries of the IPPs and KPLC contractors? and 2) Where do the conflicts and interests lie when it comes to MoEP and KPLC (the trinity) operations? It can be safely assumed that the latter will be easier to uncover than the former, as seen in the April 2018 KPLC internal audit report that highlighted an impressive array of mid-level staff caught in a dragnet of illegal tendering manoeuvres amounting to a “few” billion shillings. In a threadbare public relations move, these junior heads will surely roll as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) initiates a criminal investigation into the matter. The former will – in fine Kenyan tradition – remain obfuscated and the untold hundreds of billions will disappear into nameless, faceless black hole-type accounts.

Then came the “big gaffe” by KPLC in its Annual Report of June 2017, where Sh10.1 billion was conveniently tucked away in the books as an asset or something like that when in fact it should have been registered as a loss. It has been speculated that KPLC (the historical cash cow for ad hoc government needs, including election campaigns) approved the siphoning of these funds.

An alternative theory is that the then incumbent government demanded an artificial lowering of the fuel tariffs as one of its campaign strategies or lies, depending on your perspective. In either case, the Sh 10.1 billion had to be recovered before the shareholders caught wind of the scam. It is important to add that the culture of theft of monies from KPLC started decades ago where successive regimes had managing directors and cronies who shamelessly and systematically looted the parastatal — but that is a story for another day.

The class action suit

Between September and December 2017, KPLC recovered an initial Sh2 billion through an ill-concealed overbilling and double billing system that affected pre- and post-paid consumers, throwing household budgets into complete disarray. The Kenya National Bureau of Standards (KNBS) reported that electricity prices hit a five-year high in 2017.

In January 2018, KPLC admitted to a four-month overbilling spree and claimed that the bills were linked to backdated fuel costs incurred due to the persistent drought, resulting in lowered hydro power capacity and an over-reliance on fuel-generated electricity, as well as the introduction of new meters and billing systems that suffered from teething glitches and erroneous billing. The few of us who ignited this campaign in January 2018 were initially driven by our anger regarding our individual domestic bills. We saw that fixed and variable tariffs did not add up. That successive months were billed based on “estimates”. That we received multiple bills in a single month. That our pre-paid token values were as erratic as a drunk driver. That these spikes in our pre-/post-paid bills suspiciously coincided with the end of the [first] electioneering period of 2017.

Between September and December 2017, KPLC recovered an initial Sh2 billion through an ill-concealed overbilling and double billing system that affected pre- and post-paid consumers, throwing household budgets into complete disarray. The Kenya National Bureau of Standards (KNBS) reported that electricity prices hit a five-year high in 2017.

In my case, between September 2017 and May 2018, I have had to fork out a whopping Sh167,722 to KPLC for post-paid bills that ranged between Sh11,000 and Sh37,400. For simple domestic consumption! With three months of “estimates” billed at Sh 51,000 and random “credits” worth Sh 9,500, and Sh41,500 of that gross amount dedicated to fuel tariffs, I can only wonder at the suffering faced by millions of Kenyans who live under the pay-first-questions-later motto of KPLC.

What piqued our attention, however, were the inconsistent but ever-increasing fuel tariffs, which allowed us to understand the steady collusion between diesel-powered IPPs and KPLC’s constant untruths about low hydro power capacities, hitches with geo thermal production, and of course, the slower than molasses power line construction from Loiyangalani to Suswa. Ultimately, we realised that this battle could never be fought or won individually. Many consumers, armed with their collective horror stories, outrage and the law, were determined to #SwitchOffKPLC.

When Apollo Mboya (surely a courageous lawyer of our times) saw through this mischief, he filed a two-pronged class action suit on behalf of consumers against KPLC. The first was to obtain an injunction that would halt further “recovery” of the Sh10.1 billion and seek restitution for all consumers who had been fraudulently overbilled. Court orders to that effect were issued on 12 January, 2018. The second is strategically focused on the KPLC monopoly and shady dealings with IPPs that violate Constitutional provisions in Article 201, paragraph 8 (e) of the Fourth Schedule that distributes functions between the national and county governments. Also explored are contraventions related to the Energy Act, the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the Public Finance Management Act, the National Government Loan Guarantee Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the 2018 Budget Policy Statement.

Many Kenyans following the court case and wider campaign have understood the importance of what Mr. Mboya is doing on behalf of consumers. He steadfastly carries on, supported by the Electricity Consumers Society of Kenya and concerned citizens in the face of attacks by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK), social media trolls and, of course, the hopelessly inept KPLC spin doctors. It is evident that the quest for justice will become ever more dangerous as Mr. Mboya inches closer to the real faces behind the theft.

Five months on and not surprisingly, KPLC has yet to comply with the court order to desist and cease the overbilling of consumers, opting instead for weak public relations stunts replete with apologies and broken promises. Customer Care remains catatonic and equipment continues to malfunction. It is business as usual at KPLC. Or is it?

The consumer-focused questions worth asking are: 1) By how much has KPLC defrauded its consumers to date? 2) Which consumers have been defrauded? and 3) When will consumers receive a refund/credit? KPLC remains mum and will likely do so until the legal determination of the matter. Meanwhile, consumers continue to receive erratic and inordinately high bills. (It has since been exposed that KPLC deliberately tampered with the Integrated Consumer Management System (ICMS )that facilitated the illegal inflation of consumer bills.)

Five months on and not surprisingly, KPLC has yet to comply with the court order to desist and cease the overbilling of consumers, opting instead for weak public relations stunts replete with apologies and broken promises.

The KPLC heist may not be as sizeable as South Africa’s ESKOM that is still reeling from the effects of the #guptafiles that exposed the theft of billions of rands by specific families and cartels but we are definitely hot on the heels of what could be a continental scandal. The KPLC heist looms significantly over the lives and times of millions of Kenyans who have come together in their thousands under the #SwitchOffKPLC campaign on behalf of others. These men and women have activated a revolution and are daring to imagine a different Kenya. We are collectively determined to cut off the heads of the Medusa-like snakes that have held us hostage since 1922.

In straight-speak, we are going after the energy sector thieves and we will unmask them. And then, we are coming after you.

To be continued. . .

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.

By

Jerotich Seii is a humanitarian and development consultant with more than 20 years of experience in sub-Saharan Africa.

Politics

The Information Disorder Calls for Multidisciplinary Collaboration

The responses to the information disorder adopted in Kenya have been largely ineffective. Multidisciplinary stakeholders working collaboratively stand a higher chance of success and will result in a more informed audience that is less susceptible to mis- and disinformation.

Published

on

The Information Disorder Calls for Multidisciplinary Collaboration
Download PDFPrint Article

The information disorder (i.e., mis- and disinformation) pervasive on social media has arguably interfered with democratic processes across the world. As public authorities and political actors continue to embrace social media as a broadcast and civic engagement tool, the potency of manipulated narratives online is further entrenched. This is debatably truer in electoral contexts where issues are perhaps more emotive and divisive. For example, in the run-up to Kenya’s general elections, a notable amount of mis- and disinformation on social media was observable. As Wambui Wamunyu and June Okal noted, doctored images of crowds during political rallies, mild deepfake videos, doctored photos, and fake accounts passing off as political actors or mainstream media were just some of the categories of mis- and disinformation observable on social media. These observations tie in with earlier research by Odanga Madung and Brian Obilo, highlighting the practice of using bloggers for disinformation campaigns. During the actual elections, the EU Election Observer Mission also observed “manufactured amplification and coordination of messages online by fake accounts and malicious, bot-driven activity in support of the presidential candidates”.

The impact of the information disorder on democracies has been extensively discussed and will not be the subject of this article. Instead, this article focuses on the diverse responses which have been mooted and implemented in Kenya by policy makers, media, civil society, and social media platforms in response to the information disorder. In particular, this article argues that these responses are largely ineffective when used in isolation and suggests that collectives comprised of a broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders working collaboratively are likely to have a higher chance at success. One such collective, Fumbua, was established in the run-up to the 2022 general elections in Kenya, and this article argues that the frameworks for collaboration it established can be repurposed to address the information disorder in numerous contexts.

Contextualizing the information disorder on social media

The proliferation of mis- and disinformation on social media is made easier by the fact that such platforms, by nature, enable peer-to-peer engagement with little to no gatekeeping. While this characteristic has also meant that these platforms have served to create room for civic engagement and act as an equalizer, such civic engagement is often undermined by the harmful content that is prevalent. In recognition of the potential for harm their platforms pose to democratic processes, numerous social media platforms have adopted policies and tools specifically designed to address election-related mis-and disinformation. Comparatively, the content moderation tools applied in the Global South have arguably been scant. For example, in Brazil, the individuals tasked with enforcing Twitter’s policies during the presidential election only got access to the necessary internal tools a day prior to the election, and only in a limited capacity. Twitter allegedly utilized automatic enforcement technology and third-party service providers. According to numerous commentators, it is not uncommon for content moderation efforts in the Global South to be below par. From automatic enforcement tools trained on datasets lacking in local context, to human content moderators facing the same challenge, these platforms’ efforts to curb the information disorder are handicapped from the outset. These challenges are exacerbated in electoral contexts. Recent developments have shown that it sometimes takes third parties such as researchers or civil society pointing out harmful content for platforms to act.

It is generally agreed that mis-and disinformation was prevalent on social media during Kenya’s August 2022 general election. For example, the EU Election Observer Mission indicated in its report that it had identified hundreds of misleading Facebook and Twitter profiles. Platforms triggered their civic integrity policies a few weeks prior to the election and set up information centres and moderately labelled misleading content. However, these labels were not consistently applied and were in fact only deployed during the election tallying process. Stakeholders seemingly lacked a clear solution to address the information disorder on social media. The lack of sustainable and scalable solutions is not unique to Kenya and the region. It is certainly a global problem and a key step in the right direction is securing more transparency from platforms in relation to their enforcement processes as this will enable stakeholders to co-create solutions. However, in the interim, the information disorder can be addressed by effecting incremental and sustainable changes to how media is produced and consumed. One way to accomplish this is through multidisciplinary collectives such as Fumbua.

Addressing the information disorder

Fumbua is a collective of media and media-related organisations which came together in the run-up of the 2022 general election with a view to addressing the information disorder as it relates to political campaigning. The efforts to address the information disorder in Kenya’s 2022 general election can largely be categorized into actions taken in anticipation of the mis- and disinformation (pre-emptive measures) and actions taken in response to the information disorder (reactive measures). Fumbua brought together organisations involved in both areas, such as fact checkers, “pre-bunkers” and traditional media. Both these reactive and pre-emptive measures are discussed below.

The information disorder can be addressed by effecting incremental and sustainable changes to how media is produced and consumed.

Mis- and disinformation has reportedly featured in Kenyan elections since 2013. Consequently, with each passing cycle, stakeholders have been able to understand its nature and develop solutions which are alive to Kenya’s specific context. Unfortunately, due to the rapidly evolving nature of mis- and disinformation practices, the solutions developed have often been reactive in that they seek to get rid of such harmful content or undo its effects after the fact. For example, by criminalizing false content through the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, by fact checking such content, by using labels to warn audiences of the nature of the content, and by obtaining the takedown of such content from social media sites.

Fact checking has perhaps been the most prevalent or visible response to the information disorder. It essentially entails systematically breaking down the validity of claims made by public officials, institutions, and political actors with a view to identifying whether the claim is factual or not. In Kenya’s elections, various fact-checkers were active. These included independent media, the fact-checking desks of mainstream media, and collectives or associations. To name a few, Africa Check, Africa Uncensored, Pesa Check, Media Council of Kenya, Kenya Editors Guild and The Star were involved in fact-checking claims made during the Kenyan elections. While fact-checking has increasingly become common, it would be improper to conflate its growing prominence with its ability to address the information disorder, especially when empirical evidence on the subject is divided. In highly politicized environments, it is unlikely that being exposed to verification of claims will affect an audience’s world view. This is more so the case where the objectivity and impartiality of the fact-checkers are in question. Fact-checkers often must compete with an audience’s confirmation bias and their credibility is often questioned due to the conflict their narrative poses to the world view of some audiences. This is not made easier by the fact that fact-checking is a difficult, time-consuming, and labour-intensive process which cannot compete with the speed at which false information is spread through social media. Add in the fact that false information more easily captures attention due to its ability to trigger negative emotions and one can understand why the utility and efficacy of fact-checking is limited. Fact-checking claims made through social media have also been especially difficult in Kenya due to the minimal and often performative support given to fact-checkers by social media platforms.

For fact-checking to be effective, it must offer an alternative narrative to that which it is disputing. The challenge is that such a narrative must exist in the first place and must be capable of being accepted by an audience. Where such a narrative exists, there is a risk that it may come with “political baggage” and as such be difficult to accept. In such cases, the efficacy of fact-checking is limited, and this is essentially the challenge faced by fact-checkers – purveyors of false information are not bound by the same rules. Despite all this, fact-checking has been found to positively affect audience beliefs notwithstanding pre-existing beliefs and whether an alternative narrative was presented. However, these credentials are limited as the effects on belief are weak and gradually becoming negligible. Additionally, they do not always translate to downstream effects (i.e., changing of votes).

For a long time, stakeholders seeking to curb the information disorder have found themselves on the back-foot, always responding after the fact. By the time interventions such as fact-checks, social media takedowns, and flags are deployed, harmful content has likely taken root. With this in mind, some pre-emptive solutions have been contemplated and used by stakeholders. These are discussed below.

While fact-checking has increasingly become common, it would be improper to conflate its growing prominence with its ability to address the information disorder.

As discussed earlier in this article, fact-checkers often face the challenge of having to overcome an audience’s inherent biases and the political baggage accompanying the alternative narratives they seek to put forth. In seeking to overcome this reactionary approach, Stephan Lewandowsky and Sander van der Linden argue that it may be more effective to inoculate audiences against harmful content by priming their minds to anticipate it. This has come to be referred to as prebunking, and it essentially entails exposing audiences to watered down versions of false or misleading content with a view to highlighting the tactics used by purveyors of such content. Prebunking efforts recognize that the information disorder may not necessarily be solved by disseminating more accurate information given that harmful content is often consumed in highly politicized contexts. Instead, these efforts seek to redesign information architecture through behavioural interventions (i.e., changing how audiences consume information). In Kenya, Stop Reflect Verify was the first publicly documented election-related prebunking program. It offered a misinformation quiz focused on the Kenyan elections.

While prebunking seemingly promises to reduce the reactionary nature of stakeholder efforts, there is insufficient proof that skills learned in prebunking programmes are applied in practical situations. Counterfactual thinking may be a useful strategy to incorporate into prebunking efforts. Counterfactual thinking involves stimulating an audience’s mind to consider alternative facts and hypotheses when presented with information in a bid to logically deduce the likely truth. The lack of consensus on the utility and efficacy of prebunking as an alternative to fact-checking points to the need for the deployment of multiple interventions in a coordinated fashion, and this is where multidisciplinary collectives such as Fumbua come in.

Building in sustainability 

Periodically, civil society, media practitioners, and the donor community focus their efforts on election-related programmes in a collaborative manner (for example the media’s collaboration during presidential debates). In most cases, the collaboration does not survive the post-election period. As a result, these election stakeholders have to start anew during each election. A considerable amount of time and resources are dedicated to establishing the frameworks for collaboration, taking away from the potential impact these programmes may have. With collectives such as Fumbua, stakeholders are able to repurpose the goodwill that fostered collaboration during elections to continue to address the information disorder in other contexts. By sustaining the collaboration, stakeholders would be able to leverage on incremental gains and make a more impactful change. In relation to the information disorder, they would be better able to move towards how media is generated and consumed. The effect of this would be a more informed audience that is less susceptible to mis- and disinformation.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Next Emergency: Building Resilience through Fiscal Democracy

Crisis is the new constant and advocacy efforts should seek ways of growing public awareness through civic education.

Published

on

The Next Emergency: Building Resilience through Fiscal Democracy
Download PDFPrint Article

Are East African countries ready to face the next crisis or are they simply keen to go back to how things were? What does a new normal mean when speaking about public finance management (PFM)?

In continuing the struggle for structural transformation, economic justice efforts must work towards developing a new citizen and preparing for unpredictable or unforeseen events, more so those with extreme socio-economic and political consequences.

This is because, besides known challenges posed by existing inequalities, the COVID-19 pandemic has pointed out how “unusual circumstances such as man-made disasters, natural catastrophes, disease outbreaks and warfare … depress the ability of citizens to engage in economic activity and pay taxes as well as that of governments [capacity] to collect revenue [or] provide services”.

Such circumstances therefore demand more inclusion of human rights-based approaches in economic justice efforts to champion greater fairness within existing financial architecture.

Disasters should, therefore, not obliterate human rights but should heighten the need to respect, protection, and fulfilment of obligations through prioritizing expenditure on service delivery, as well as all elements of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCRs) to “boost the capacity of residents to withstand shocks” by improving coping mechanisms.

Promotion of fair taxes among other broader economic justice initiatives within PFM should consequently adapt towards championing ESCRS within the context of more disruptive and unexpected incidents. Crisis is constant in the new normal.

Fiscal democracy and civil protection: Recovery, resilience, and transformation

Currently, conversations on recovery are focused on tackling reduced tax collection; slowed growth; depressed formal or informal productivity; exploding unemployment; diminished remittances; persistent poverty; decline in energy access; and escalating food insecurity.

This emphasis seeks to reverse the effects of various lockdown policies that placed restrictions on businesses, mobility, movement within and across international borders, [plus] public gatherings. However, it speaks mostly of a desire to return to pre-COVID levels of economic activity while vital systems in tackling the next crisis such as water, education, or health remain unaddressed.

Economic justice initiatives should therefore embrace fiscal democracy and civil protection as goals or appendages in achieving the structural transformation agenda. This will then speak to the resilience, and transformation needed to ensure PFM works for Africans in good times or bad.

Understanding fiscal democracy takes the form of better prioritization, response to problems, and improved sanctions for mistakes in the revenue cycle.

Advocacy for increased domestic opportunities, promotion of childhood development, enhanced socio-economic mobility, support for workers, motivation of local entrepreneurship, diversification of public infrastructure from mega projects, as well as increased innovation through subsidized research and development should be at the heart of economic justice efforts.

Economic justice initiatives should therefore embrace fiscal democracy and civil protection as goals or appendages in achieving the structural transformation agenda.

Civil protection gives a new framework of planning by envisioning contexts or processes in which a series of unfortunate events can emerge, thus providing adequate responses without breaking the social contract.

Transformation therefore occurs when both go hand in hand so that public facilities are not overstretched in the event of crisis. Hence, in looking at the impact of Covid-19, across the East Africa region, we must ask ourselves: How transformative are the current recovery efforts underway? Will they offer a new resilience?

The salvage job: Economic sustainability through reliefs, guarantees, subsidies, and funds

Responses have clearly been driven by the urgency to overcome the pandemic and the need to forestall outright disaster or collapse. The “short-term rescue mode” has seen efforts to ensure vaccine access and bolstering of public health systems.

On the economic front governments “Have sought debt relief, implemented corporate tax deferrals plus exemptions, made direct citizen transfers and interest rate adjustments. [They have also] implemented guarantees and subsidies, liquidity support and food relief … [with] examples of support for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Cash transfers and other safety nets for poor and vulnerable populations are critical for an integrated … response. While not transformational, they are building blocks for a basic level of resilience to external shocks.”

The fact that these efforts are not transformational must motivate the infusion of a justice quotient in recovery efforts. This will enable a movement beyond an emergency-oriented recovery that recognizes existing modern challenges such as climate change, population growth, scarce resources, man-made or natural calamities.

In the case of tax justice, to make the linkages that will establish economic sustainability in East Africa, it is important to understand the effect of recovery efforts in relation to public debt; the tax burden on individuals or households; illicit financial flows; harmful tax practices; economic growth; and resource distribution.

Recognizing the prevalent debt crisis even before the pandemic struck is important in informing economic justice movements and their activities. Concerns were looming over the fact that 40 per cent of Sub-Saharan African countries were in or at high risk of debt distress. Between 2010 and 2018, public debt in East Africa grew rapidly as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – National Debt to GDP Ratio

Source: Individual Country Central Banks

Source: Individual Country Central Banks

In this time, East African Community (EAC) governments failed to mobilize sufficient revenue despite an overall increase in taxes. The situation was therefore exacerbated by COVID-19, the consequence being that these countries are now stuck in a situation where they must tax more to bridge revenue gaps.

Basically this, first and foremost, creates a context of unfair tax policies in the region that burden their respective citizens, does not enhance service delivery, and is exclusionary in how debt repayment strategies are developed.

Lack of open debate about a country’s fiscal priorities within the existing PFM system neglects the needs of youth who constitute the majority of the population among other segments of society, curtails ideas on how to increase resources needed to provide for new economic opportunity(ies) and respond to the next emergency.

Recognizing the prevalent debt crisis even before the pandemic struck is important in informing economic justice movements and their activities.

Secondly, an environment or ecosystem of illicit financial flows (IFFs) that constitutes the formation of International Financial Centres (IFCs) in Kigali and Nairobi plus the signing of numerous Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) continues to perpetuate itself thereby providing loopholes within the tax architecture that undermine efforts at domestic revenue mobilization (DRM) because the monies going out of countries are so massive, outweighing Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).

This is thanks to “Constitutionalism [among other legal questions] plus demands to implement new public finance management principles, growth in trade and services across countries in the region or with other countries across the globe, and discovery of natural resources requiring more inflows of foreign direct investments (FDI).”

On average IFFs accounts form 6.1 per cent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) thereby impeding economic development and sustainability. For instance, since 2011, Kenya is estimated to lose KSh40 billion annually “as government, local firms and multinationals engage in fraudulent schemes to avoid tax payments”. As of 2021, The State of Tax Justice Report indicates this has grown to an estimated KSh69 billion annually at current exchange rates.

Third, growing account deficits and rising external debt are heavily limiting to economic growth. Increased spending on debt repayment is restricting prioritization on essential public goods and services while borrowing remains one of the key sources of budget financing.

In as much as Kenya cancelled its recent pursuit of another Eurobond, the about-turn towards borrowing domestically following a surge in yields within international markets because of the Russia-Ukraine war is still going to punish the country’s citizens by squeezing them out of access to credit.

Lastly, the debt burden is disempowering the citizen. Rising public debt may result in poor public participation in the management of fiscal policy, and weak structures for keeping governments accountable. This is further worsened by limited access to information on debt or public spending. Moreover, there is weak oversight by parliaments as executives take full control of processes.

Policy-making processes during cascading crises: Fiscal Consolidation, Special Drawing Rights, and Open Government

By understanding that crisis is constant, and that it is likely to manifest as confluence events — merging risks of mitigatable disaster(s) — or major confluence events, that is, the combination of potentially unmitigated risk(s) at any one point in time, how does policy making at such a time help to prepare for the emergency next time?

For example, what does Kenya’s fiscal consolidation programme — which comprises of reforms to improve oversight, monitoring, and governance of state-owned enterprises; improved transparency of fiscal reporting; and comprehensive information of public tenders awarded including beneficial ownership information of awarded entities — have to do with preparing for the next series of cascading crises?

Several emergency relief funds have been established to address the impact of COVID-19, such as the Rapid Credit Facility, the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, and the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI).

However, these efforts are not likely to unlock the existing “trilemma” of solving the health plus economic crisis and meeting development targets while dealing with a tightening fiscal space. This is because they are stuck in the present circumstances with no consciousness of how much the challenge is likely to prevail into the future.

East African Community governments, in this time, failed to mobilize sufficient revenue, despite an overall increase in taxes.

Adopting fiscal democracy not only provides a new agenda determining organizing principles, but it has the potential for establishing a new citizenship through further entrenchment of human rights-based approaches in economic justice, and commitment to open government principles.

It will also anticipate and prevent the disaster capitalism witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many African countries seem to be in a constant state of crisis, thus allowing for IFFs through PFM malfeasance that locks corruption and fraud into procurement through bid rigging or collusion.

Principals of public participation, demands for accountability, championing non-discrimination, advocacy for empowering programing, and legitimacy through the rule of law should set standards on beneficial ownership while open contracting, open data for development, legislative openness, improving service delivery, access to information, and access to justice will help build resilience in government.

A call to civic education: Revenue rights and obligations

Somewhere along the way, capacity building and training programming took prominence over civic education. Advocacy efforts should look for ways to bring back more popular public awareness. Denial of resources for these kinds of activities has been a major blow for PFM advocacy among other activist efforts.

Civic education will re-establish links between individual claims to service delivery and assigned duties in the fulfilment of public demands. Citizens will be able to identify how the problem manifests and engage on the immediate, underlying or root causes of an issue.

Rising public debt may result in poor public participation in the management of fiscal policy, and weak structures for keeping governments accountable.

It will also allow them to establish the patterns of relationships which may result in the non-fulfilment of rights or absconding of obligations. This will enable them to assign appropriate responsibility by identifying the relevant authorities. It will keep an eye on resources through participating in decision making.

Governments and political leadership should therefore work to improve their communication capabilities in engaging the public so that once this new citizenry is involved, they can work together to achieve representative priorities for action.

This article is based on a presentation and comments made at the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD), Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Debt Conference, Towards strengthening accountability and transparency around public debt management and the use of IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in Eastern and Southern Africa, 20–21 June 2022, Nairobi, Kenya.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘They Cannot Represent Themselves, They Must Be Represented’

Beyond service delivery, refugee-led organizations are increasingly involved in advocacy yet the current set-up within the field of humanitarian governance continues to relegate them to the role of mere beneficiaries.

Published

on

‘They Cannot Represent Themselves, They Must Be Represented’
Download PDFPrint Article

Ever since it appeared in the epigraph of Edward Said’s influential critique of Western “experts”, Orientalism, Marx’s dismissal of the French peasantry has come to stand for everything wrong with a certain type of condescending political crusade: elites speaking on behalf of groups viewed as incapable of articulating their own interests.

Commonly known in the humanitarian world as “saviourism”, this patronizing tendency is entrenched within the field of displacement governance, where highly placed individuals employed by donor agencies regularly devise policies on behalf of downtrodden communities whose circumstances are remote from their own.

The dramatic rise to prominence of RLOs (Refugee-led Organizations) presents an important challenge to the paternalism of this order.

Within a short space of time since 2018 when an historic summit in Geneva was convened by refugee leaders from across the world, demands for “a seat at the table” have been recognized at the highest level. In 2019, the UN invited RLO representatives to its own Global Refugee Forum. In 2020, Canada announced an advisory role for a former refugee to observe its international protection meetings; Germany and the USA have since followed suit, underlining the growing acknowledgement of the legitimacy and significance of refugee leadership.

On the surface, these developments would seem to suggest the RLO phenomenon is a rare example of successful “localization”—the transfer of resources and decision-making power to stake-holding communities.

Yet little is known about the regional trajectories of RLOs. This despite the fact that local (or “glocal”) actors in the Global South laid the foundations for the aforementioned developments on the world stage. Without data on the impact of RLOs in camps, settlements and cities where their most important work takes place, their contributions and the obstacles they face remain poorly understood.

Having worked for an international organization as a migration specialist in Kenya and visited Uganda, I’m struck by the vibrancy of RLO mobilization in both countries, as well as the persistent challenges they face. Their successes and their struggles reflect the specificities of displacement governance in East Africa and the surrounding regions—the Great Lakes and Horn of Africa. Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda each host some of the largest refugee populations in the world. Conditions and regulatory frameworks vary and are far from perfect for RLOs in these countries. For the most part, however, they shoulder their “burdens” without succumbing to the anti-immigrant xenophobia rife in more affluent nations. Presidents Museveni of Uganda and Kagame of Rwanda each have lived experience of exile, a fact that reflects a certain acceptance of displacement as a mundane reality rather than an alarming aberration.

This context has important implications for the political agency of refugees. For whilst their participation in public life remains limited and is at times curtailed, RLOs in this region are particularly dynamic and advanced. It is no coincidence that Ugandan RLOs, where refugees enjoy freedom of mobility and association, have played a leading role in the movement for refugee participation in Africa. Studies have identified between 20 and 30 such groups operating in Kampala, home to some 80,000 refugees. The precise number is difficult to ascertain given that RLOs vary in size and visibility.

Defined loosely as organizations established and led by refugees, RLOs include well-established NGOs with transnational networks, funding partnerships and global profiles such as HOCW (Hope of Children and Women Victims of Violence), whose capacious premises in Kampala are not so different from the national or indeed international NGO offices that I have visited in Asia and Africa.

It is no coincidence that Ugandan RLOs, where refugees enjoy freedom of mobility and association, have played a leading role in the movement for refugee participation in Africa.

At the other end of the spectrum, RLOs can be small, informal, community-based “self-help” groups that operate without donor funding or formal membership. Between these two poles are medium-sized operations that lack substantial funding but are registered and possess formal membership structures.

A recent study by refugee researchers, which identified 63 RLOs in Uganda and 138 in Kenya, claimed beneficiaries report positive experiences with RLOs because they treat them with greater dignity and understanding of their needs than larger humanitarian agencies. Service delivery is adapted to local conditions and as a result, targeted towards the needs of groups and individuals. It also tends to be less bound by bureaucratic rules, reaching the newly arrived who lack documentation—often the most vulnerable.

More than mere service-delivery, RLOs are increasingly engaged in advocacy. HOCW’s Congolese founder, John Bolingo Ntahira, contributed to the inaugural Global Refugee Summit in 2018, and remains on the Global Refugee Network’s steering committee, underlining East African RLOs’ pivotal role in driving the international movement for refugee representation in policy-making.

Together with a handful of other pioneering RLO leaders, Bolingo set up RELON (Refugee-Led Organizations Network) in 2017, a network headquartered in Kampala that has branched out into other African countries.

Expanding through international gatherings and leveraging connections in the African Union are high priorities for RELON, which is keen to develop a continental voice. It has campaigned successfully in host countries on issues such as refugees’ access to vaccines, travel documents, and the registration of SIM cards.

This penchant for building solidarities across borders and working at multiple scales of governance holds the key to the innovative potential of RLOs. As transnational actors with diasporic links and cosmopolitan sensibilities, refugee leaders I met are well-travelled, well-networked and inclined towards Pan-African solutions. Unlike many career diplomats who might claim the same, the continental coalitions they build are comprised of people with lived experience of the challenges faced in exile—individuals like Bolingo who shared a home with 70 compatriots in an old bus converted into a make-shift shelter in the early 2000s.

This penchant for building solidarities across borders and working at multiple scales of governance holds the key to the innovative potential of RLOs.

Who better to address the interests of displaced persons than men and women who have themselves experienced or witnessed mortal threats, precarious border-crossings and destitution first-hand, and who still dwell among refugee communities?

***

The UNHCR has taken various strides toward enabling meaningful RLO participation, such as issuing innovation awards to RLOs for their work during the pandemic and piloting small grants. More generally, the working relationship between RLOs and big players within the international humanitarian order expands daily with new initiatives documented on social media amidst smiles and handshakes. The former wish to project themselves as legitimate actors on the world stage, in close proximity to the latter, who in turn find it increasingly incumbent upon them to demonstrate awareness of the importance of RLOs.

Yet, beneath the surface of these exchanges lies a simmering tension. Several refugee leaders I interviewed made allegations of bad faith against powerbrokers in the humanitarian field, accusing them of condescension and placing obstacles in their path: actively undermining their access to funding and/or oppressively “micro-managing” them in exploitative unequal “partnerships”, and excluding and patronizing them at every turn.

“Our ‘big brothers’ don’t want to recognize us,” said a key figure in Kenya bitterly. He is convinced that those who currently control the purse strings “fear” losing privileged positions over organizations such as his own. Others who stopped short of explicit accusation made their sentiments known through body language: brows furrowed, jaws clenched at the mere mention of the behemothic agencies, donors and organizations that comprise the humanitarian establishment.

A 2020 article by Oxford researchers lifts the lid on the history of this encounter with sordid allegations against at least one UNHCR IP (Implementing Partner), InterAid, which stands accused of setting up a fake CBO (Refugee Now) run by its own staff to create false evidence of “community” engagement. If the truth of such matters is difficult to verify, their legacy of mistrust and grievance is clear.

At a conference on localization last March in Nairobi during NGO week, refugee leaders and their allies lamented the lack of structural transformation when it comes to funding flows and decision-making in the humanitarian field. Attendees and speakers included Jean Marie Ishimwe, founder of Youth Voices Community, a Kenyan RLO, and INGOs such as Trócaire, an Irish charity committed to localization.

Frustration that growing RLO visibility during the pandemic has failed to alter mind-sets and bottom lines when it comes to partnerships and budgets was palpable. RLOs complained of being instrumentalized or ignored altogether by most big donor agencies and their IPs. Too often, they said, “inclusion” takes the form of tokenism: invitations to participate in activities typically expect them to mobilize their communities for the realization of projects that have already been designed. Offers of “capacity-building”, meanwhile, rarely consider the pedagogical potential of RLOs, whose local knowledge and lived experience of displacement is often lacking among so many of their expat counterparts employed by international and national NGOs. They lamented the lack of multi-year funding for the development of their administrative capacity, a gap that leaves them unable to hire or retain qualified professionals that might boost their ability to attract funding independently, reinforcing their dependency on larger organizations.

Frustration that growing RLO visibility during the pandemic has failed to alter mind-sets and bottom lines when it comes to partnerships and budgets was palpable.

None of this will surprise observers of localization given the almost complete failure to implement the “Grand Bargain” of 2016, which promised to funnel a quarter of humanitarian funds directly to national and local actors within the field of humanitarian governance but delivered a mere 0.5 per cent of tracked funding in 2019.

***

The hesitancy of large donors to fund RLOs stems at least in part from genuine constraints. RLOs, they say (in private), can be too small and unprofessional to manage and effectively spend large grants that require complex financial auditing. A related concern is the perception that RLOs are unstable given the changing personal trajectories of staff and/or founders, whose individual asylum and resettlement claims can mean suspending operations mid-way through funding cycles. Then there is concern about the potentially distortive impact of funding RLOs, whose ethnic, religious and/or national affiliations arguably make them unsuitable for serving broader, diverse refugee publics.

My own inquiries confirmed what researchers have already documented: that none of these charges should be dismissed, because each contains a grain of truth.

Most RLOs do begin as CBOs catering for specific ethnic and national groupings; oftentimes they possess limited administrative capacity. Those that do manage to grow in size and ambition do indeed tend to be headed by well-educated men. Moreover, it is not unknown for the personnel of RLOs to be resettled in the course of funding cycles. I also heard several references to “founder’s syndrome”, a psychological disorder among some egoistic individuals who struggle to detach their personal interests from those of the organization they have established.

In view of such challenges, some of the most enthusiastic supporters of refugee leadership are seeking to bridge the gap between RLOs and the powerbrokers that perpetuate their exclusion constructively.

COHERE, an INGO with offices in Kampala and Nairobi, has thrown its full weight behind putting refugee-led organizations “in the driving seat”. It does this through training and advice to RLOs on how to attract funds, how to implement and document project work effectively, and how to plan strategically in the longer term. If in its advocacy COHERE counters prejudice among RLO-sceptics, much of its daily work addresses donors’ concerns through corrective measures that acknowledge the need for work on all sides.

Some of the most enthusiastic supporters of refugee leadership are seeking to bridge the gap between RLOs and the powerbrokers that perpetuate their exclusion constructively.

Herein lies the difference between COHERE and reactionary big players dragging their feet on localization: Where the latter use RLOs’ weaknesses as justification to prolong a status quo in which the former can only ever be “beneficiaries”, tokens and symbols in projects they design themselves, the former view them as obstacles that can and must be removed to create a more level playing field.

A glimpse at COHERE’s network provides strong evidence of RLOs’ ability to grow and develop in ways critics seem reluctant to acknowledge. In Kampala, I visited Bondeko Refugee Livelihoods Centre, founded by a Congolese priest now resettled in Canada. Far from parochial, its young staff and membership was diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity: many of those it supports are from Burundi and Rwanda, and like many refugee businesses in Kampala, it even provides employment for Ugandan citizens. The founder’s resettlement seems not have had adverse consequences.

***

As an expat employed by an international organization engaged in advocacy, refugee leaders’ critiques of the humanitarian sector’s paternalism can feel close to the bone. When they fume against the condescension of do-gooders who represent their interests without walking in their shoes, are they talking about me?

None of the refugee leaders I interviewed for this article said so (explicitly), and it would be easy enough to join them in pointing fingers elsewhere. More challenging than “speaking the truth to power”, however, is speaking it to oneself: to admit that the entrenched privilege they seek to dismantle includes my own.

To the legions of foreign “experts” whose postings in the Global South involve analysing, shaping or influencing policies that do not directly affect us, RLOs pose questions we should be asking ourselves everyday about our long-term presence and role in the Global South. Above all: What are we doing to devolve power and resources to present and future generations of stakeholders?

Signatories of the Charter 4 Change such as COHERE and Trócaire have committed to channelling a quarter of humanitarian funding directly to national and/or local NGOs. But many larger bureaucratized entities with decades of heritage and established identities have shown little urgency in adapting to a world in which refugees are partners rather than beneficiaries. Despite many words and some (limited) deeds, commitment to structural reform remains unproven and there is scant evidence of the soul-searching that should be taking place.

For African NGOs, a different kind of self-reflection may be required. Although “local” in terms of registration, these tend to be staffed by highly educated professionals hailing from host country elites, among whom lived experience of exile is rare. It is easier for them to attract donor funding than RLOs, which can cause resentment and rivalry. One refugee leader I interviewed seethed as he recounted rebuffing an invitation from a national NGO to participate in a project as a beneficiary: “We’ll get our own funding to work on this issue,” he scoffed, insisting he could have implemented the same project more effectively.

Devota Nuwe, acting Co-Director of The Refugee Law Project, a highly respected national NGO based in Kampala, has occasionally found herself on the receiving end of such sentiments in the course of her career as a displacement specialist. The kinds of remarks directed at her and her colleagues by individual refugee leaders aggrieved at salaried professionals whose job it is to support them suggest a frankness rarely directed against INGO workers. (“Those clothes you’re wearing, it’s because of us!”).

What such sentiment fails to acknowledge is that there are contexts in which refugees cannot easily represent themselves—in which they must be represented by non-refugees. Defending or appealing on their behalf in courts of law, for example, is specialized work that requires qualified professionals acquainted with the host country’s legal system and political context.

Perhaps this explains Nuwe’s relaxed attitude towards the rise of RLOs, whom she and her colleagues have welcomed into their industry, despite the occasional criticism that comes their way. “There’s room for all of us,” she chuckles, when I ask her if she ever gets anxious about the prospect of a competitive threat from individuals who openly tell her they should be in her place.

In truth, national NGOs that enjoy the trust of their stakeholders have nothing to fear from the rise of RLOs. The same can be said of INGOs already cooperating in partnerships with RLOs, in which each plays a distinct but complementary role to achieve common objectives.

In truth, national NGOs that enjoy the trust of their stakeholders have nothing to fear from the rise of RLOs.

Indeed, there is something to be said for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s oft-cited commitment to making humanitarian action “as local as possible, as international as necessary”. The trouble with the current setup is that it under-utilizes the potential of refugees, and is far more international than it needs to be. In the words of John Bolingo Ntahira: “No one understands refugees’ problems better than we do”. Those of us who profess expertise on displacement would do well to acknowledge this basic fact and its transformative potential.

This article is part of a series on migration and displacement in and from Africa, co-produced by the Elephant and the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s African Migration Hub, which is housed at its new Horn of Africa Office in Nairobi.

Continue Reading

Trending