Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) SECURING THE COUNTIES: OPTIONS FOR SECURITY AFTER DEVOLUTION IN KENYA By Kennedy Mkutu, Martin Marani and Mutuma Ruteere Centre for Human Rights and Policy Studies (CHRIPS) July 2014 1 Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) About CHRIPS The Centre for Human Rights and Policy Studies (CHRIPS) was founded as a response to the need for institutions in Africa dedicated to generating new, context-relevant knowledge and finding solutions to meet the development challenges of the 21st century. Registered in 2009, CHRIPS is an international institution, principally working in Africa, and committed to the generation and dissemination of policy-relevant knowledge, and to the development of public policy solutions that also promote human rights and social justice. CHRIPS is an independent think tank engaged in the search for local solutions to the urgent problems of the day through local knowledge and the best of international ideas. CHRIPS offers a forum where policy makers and implementers, policy advocates and scholars interact in an environment of mutual understanding and respect. It seeks to support policy reforms in the public sector through evidence- based research and strengthening the capacity of relevant actors. It is also interested in supporting the work of the state, civil society and other non-state actors to contribute more effectively to the building of just societies in Africa. CHRIPS’s flagship programme is the Security Governance Programme, which seeks to support and promote evidence-based policy change and public discourse on the governance of security. About the Researchers Kennedy Mkutu Agade is an Associate Professor in International Relations and Peace Studies at United States International University (USIU), Nairobi. He is the Manager for Crime Prevention Training in Nairobi, collaboration between USIU and Kenya School of Government (KSG), funded by Open Society Initiative in East Africa (OSIEA). The training brings together stakeholders from all sectors to build capacity and promote the crime prevention discourse in Kenya. His work includes Mkutu, K (2008) “Guns and Governance in the Rift Valley: Pastoral Conflict and Small Arms” (Oxford: James Currey) and K. Mkutu and G. Wandera. (2013) “Policing the Periphery: Opportunities and Challenges for the Kenya Police Reserves.” (Geneva: Small Arms Survey). Martin Marani is a Lecturer at the University of Nairobi’s Department of Geography and Environmental Studies. He has carried out extensive work in environmental impacts, including in pastoral areas. His work includes Marani, M and Kambona, O (2008) ‘The Role of Watershed Research in Policy Change for Increased Uptake of Millennium Development Goals in Developing Countries’. Respir Physiol Neurobiol, HRDU, University of Nairobi. Mutuma Ruteere is the Director, Centre for Human Rights and Policy Studies. His publications on security include: “Security and Human Rights in Kenya's New Constitutional Order” (2014); “Missing the Point: Violence Reduction and Policy Misadventures in Nairobi’s Poor Neighbourhoods” with J. Lind, P. Mutahi and B. Mitchell (2013); “More than Political Tools: The Police and Post-Election Violence in Kenya (2011); “Regional Challenge, Local Response: Civil Society and Human Rights in US-Kenya Counter- Terrorism Cooperation,” with M. Ogada (2009) ; “Dilemmas of Crime and Human Rights: The Politics of Mungiki Violence in Kenya,” (Kenya Human Rights Institute, 2008) ; “Democratizing Policing or Decentralizing Despotism? The Ambiguities of Community Policing in Kenya,” with M. Pommerolle (2003). He also serves as the UN Human Rights Council as the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 2 Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) Acknowledgements The authors are extremely grateful for assistance and information provided by national and county government officers, security officers, civil society, faith-based and private actors as well as key opinion leaders at local levels. This final report is a product of the collective thinking of various experts convened by CHRIPS in two critique meetings held in Nairobi. CHRIPS staff—Mikewa Ogada, Eva Ayiera, Stanley Kamau, Maureen Yator and Patrick Mutahi—have immensely contributed to the ideas and analysis in this study and in the efficient management of the research and writing process. Mikewa Ogada edited several drafts of this study. CHRIPS is grateful to Danida for the generous financial support to this study. 3 Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) Acronyms and Abbreviations AP Administration Police CEO Chief Executive Officer CPA County Police Authority CSC County Security Committee CSO Civil Society Organisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FGD Focus Group Discussion GOK Government of Kenya IED Improvised Explosive Devices IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System IGP Inspector General of Police KDF Kenya Defence Force KPR Kenya Police Reserve LAPSSET Lamu Port South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport MRC Mombasa Republican Council NACADA National Authority for Campaign against Alcohol and Drug Abuse NCIC National Cohesion and Integration Commission NGAO National Government Administration Office NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIS National Intelligence Service NPS National Police Service NSAC National Security Advisory Committee NSC National Security Council NSIS National Security Intelligence Service NYS National Youth Service OCCPP Officer in Charge of Police Post OCPD Officer in Charge of Police Division OCPPB Officer in Charge of Police Patrol Base OCS Officer in Charge of Station PA Provincial Administration 4 Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11 Objectives of the study, scope and limitations ................................................................................... 13 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Patterns and Trends of Insecurity and Conflict ............................................................................... 19 4. Management of Security in Kenya after Devolution ...................................................................... 21 5. Emerging Issues and Developments .............................................................................................. 26 6. Recommendations and Options for the Future .............................................................................. 44 References .............................................................................................................................................. 49 5 Securing the Counties: Options for Security After Devolution in Kenya (July 2014) Executive Summary The March 2013 general elections brought into place the first devolved system of government as envisaged by the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, a popular move, for which Kenyans had voted, in the hope that it would correct regional economic and political marginalization and promote participation and accountability. Devolution handed the day to day running of counties to 47 elected county governors, each working alongside county assemblies, and a professional county bureaucracy. The national government retained control over certain core functions, including security and education. One year since the devolved system of governance came into place, it is evident that the system has precipitated changes in various sectors sometimes blurring the lines of the demarcations envisaged by the constitution or introducing new unanticipated dynamics. In particular, the constitution is explicit that security is the mandate of the national government. Nevertheless, devolution has introduced new variables to the processes that generate security and insecurity as well as to the management of security in general. It is also evident from the constitution, the county governments' legislation and practice, that while counties do not have a direct mandate to provide security, they have vital functions in priority setting and an important development mandate which impacts upon drivers of insecurity such as unemployment, inequality and disputes over land. Moreover, it is within counties that what are termed national security concerns emerge, crystallize and are ultimately resolved. Consequently, county governance is inextricably weaved with the national functions of security management and governance. Even in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, in practice, security is emerging as a concurrent function with both the national and county governments co-financing security activities. This signals an important innovation with regard to security governance under the devolved system of government. The extent of the link between county governance and processes of security and insecurity