The Suppression of Terrorism Bill, which will be coming up for debate in Parliament soon, has been comprehensively analysed and received richly deserved criticism.

The public believe the Americans and the British are its architects. The similarity between it and the US Patriot Act is disconcerting. 

The fact that the Americans support it lends credence to this perception. It intensifies Kenyans' resentment against official America over its handling of the war on terror.

The international community recognises that terrorism constitutes a global threat and has committed itself to taking firm action to address the problem.

The 2002 report of the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism recognised that the global struggle against terrorism requires intellectual and moral clarity and a carefully differentiated implementation plan. 

Further, to overcome terrorism, it is necessary to understand its political nature as well as its basic criminality and psychology.

Kenya acceded to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism bombings and ratified both the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism. 

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1,373 was passed soon after 9/11 and sets a fierce and ambitious legislative and administrative agenda for all UN member states. 

What this means is that we are bound internationally to come up with firm strategies to combat terrorism within our borders.

Kenya is required to domesticate multilateral treaties by passing legislation to make acts of terrorism identified in the conventions punishable within Kenya, bearing in mind that such acts violate human rights. 

However, legislation passed to fulfil international obligations must also meet international human rights standards. The Kenyan Bill fails this test miserably.

Human rights are non-negotiable. The Government must not be allowed to compromise our rights when framing strategies to deal with terrorism. 

The UN Secretary-General has repeatedly cautioned State parties, as they adopt strategies to fight terrorism, that, "while we certainly need vigilance to prevent acts of terrorism, and firmness in condemning and punishing them, it will be self-defeating if we sacrifice other key priorities – such as human rights – in the process". 

The Policy Working Group recognised that terrorism thrives in environments in which human rights are violated. These provide terrorists with opportunities to gain support for their cause. 

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, many countries, taking their cue from America, speedily passed anti-terror legislation with disastrous consequences for human rights. Below are a few examples:

The American Patriot Act, which is the seed of our Bill and many others, has attracted extensive criticism from a broad spectrum of Americans. Critics are now actively campaigning to have the Act repealed, citing federal threats to cherished American rights. 

There is increasing furore in the US over plans for replacement legislation called Patriot Act II, which is condemned as even worse than the original!

Britain, another big player in the Kenyan anti-terrorism strategy development, has had anti-terror legislation for a long time. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used to detain about 7,000 people, the vast majority being released without charge. 

Almost without exception, those not charged could have been arrested under ordinary criminal law. 

After September 11, Britain passed the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, 2001. It provides for interning foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. In other words, the government can detain foreigners indefinitely and without charge.

India’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was passed in 2002. The government faced stiff opposition to the Bill from a wide section of the community, just as our own Government. The Indian government, again like ours, assured citizens that the Act, which granted security forces immense special powers, would not be misused. The Act, they vowed, would be invoked only to combat terrorism.

In the 20 months of its operation, all evidence indicates the contrary. POTA appears to have been consistently misused to incarcerate political opponents and target innocent civilians. 

Pakistan’s Act has been used to justify illegal detentions and extradition of suspects to the United States without the due process.

In Uganda, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2002, has been used to repress political dissent and strictly limit freedom of expression, especially by the media. Radio stations were last year warned against airing interviews with exiled opposition leader, Col Kizza Besigye and threatened with prosecution under the Act. 

Government officials stated that anyone who aided Mr Besigye, himself labelled a terrorist, would also be guilty of an offence under the Act, clearly contravening the constitutional right of association. 

In Tanzania, Muslims have consistently protested that the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, targets their religious freedom.

Experience shows that governments have misused anti-terrorism legislation similar to those envisaged in Kenya's Bill. 

If the Government adopts it in its current form knowing that it will not achieve its objectives because it is inherently flawed, this will be irresponsible, unjustifiable and totally unacceptable.

---

Ms Kagari is the Co-ordinator, East Africa Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Comments\Views about this article