New rules boost vigilance against violent extremism
By People Reporter, September 20, 2019By Kingori Choto
Parliament recently enacted regulations giving the National Counter-Terrorism Centre additional powers to regulate non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) involved in countering radicalisation and violent extremism.
The new rules have not gone down well with NGOs and CSOs, who claim they are not only draconian but also unconstitutional.
The contentious rules are contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act signed into law by the President on July 5. The Act amends the Prevention of Terrorism Act in part to make the counter terrorism centre the reporting institution for all NGOs and CSOs engaged in preventing and countering extremism and radicalisation.
The overall effect of the new regulations is to bring community-based organisations involved in countering violent extremism within the purview of the centre.
Community-based entities play a valuable role in fighting extremism via public sensitisation and outreach. They work with individuals and groups susceptible to radicalisation and violent extremism, and then seek to deradicalise them.
Such organisations offer a direct, non-violent pathway to confronting and eradicating radicalisation and violent extremism. But opposing the new rules, in my view, is misguided.
Lack of a definitive framework to regulate the activities of such organisations creates loopholes for terrorists to infiltrate and use them to advance their criminal motives.
CSOs claim the requirement to report to the counter terrorism centre is an attempt to control and silence them. And that the new rules impede their work in human rights. But does the argument hold water?
Violent extremism is a sensitive subject. Given its far-reaching social, economic, political and security implications, it requires a multi-faceted approach involving all stakeholders. Kenya has in the past borne the brunt of deadly terrorist attacks. It is a no-brainer, therefore, that tough measures should be put in place in order to detect, counter and defeat extremists and their sympathisers.
This is the big picture that opponents of the new regulations are missing. For the centre to effectively discharge its mandate, it must be clothed with jurisdiction to supervise entities involved in war against extremism. Fundamentally, this entails tracking such entities to prevent criminals using them to conceal their real motives.
A close perusal of the amendments reveals that they do not target human rights campaigners as claimed by opponents. Truth is, they apply only to those “engaged in preventing and countering violent extremism and radicalisation…”
The targeted CSOs also claim the new regulations infringe on their right to hold confidential information regarding their activities. The State is the primary custodian of public safety and security. Insisting on confidentiality only serves to fuel mistrust among various actors in the fight against extremism and terror.
The new rules should be seen as a mechanism to make the counterterrorism space more transparent. Most, importantly, we should avoid playing politics with the lives of Kenyans.
—The writer is a lawyer and public affairs consultant