The Rationale to Multi-Agency Approach to Kenya’s Security

The Rationale to Multi-Agency Approach to Kenya’s Security

Introduction

Kenya is a country that has been faced with significant security challenges, especially those of terrorism. These challenges have threatened to tamper with the country socio-economic status compelling President Uhuru Kenyatta to call upon all security agencies to work together to deal with the menace. The president, while addressing course 16 of 2016-2017 stated that the independent approach of security agencies in dealing with insecurity had bared no fruit around the world (HIRBO, 2018). Therefore, the time had come for security agencies in the country to work together to eliminate the threat of insecurity. The rationale for this approach was that combining the efforts of the distinct security agencies in the country such as the ministry of internal security, the department of immigration and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) would avail plenty of resources to deal with extremism in the country thus enhance the country’s security status.

President Uhuru Kenyatta also argued that the multi-agency approach would make the task of providing security in the country lighter hence the need to combine resources in fighting terrorism and other security challenges in the region. To illustrate the importance of the approach, the president cited the example of the “Operation Linda Boni” campaign where different security organization came together to beef up security, making the task easier. The “Operation Linda Boni” however, is not the only task that has seen different agencies come together to tighten security in the country. The government of Kenya has been using the approach to tackle different security challenges in various scenarios. For instance, the Nyumba Kumi” and the “community Policing” initiatives are some of the strategies that the government has embraced over the years, in conjunction with the various security organizations in the country to enhance security in the region (Nolasco, 2017).

Ministry Of Interior and Coordination of the National Government

The Ministry Of Interior and Coordination of the National Government is docket within the national government tasked with the mandate of overseeing security within the country. The ministry deals with internal security, the publication of public documents and the coordination of government activities (Nolasco, 2017). Additionally, the department is charged with the responsibility of campaigning against drug and alcohol abuse, the supervision of prison services and managing the registration of persons and immigration, all of which play a crucial role in determining the level of security in the country.

Furthermore, the ministry of interior and coordination of the national government is also tasked with other diverse functions, which have been spread between administrative regions within the 47 counties (Molony, 2019). Some of these tasks include offering reception services to state functions, coordination official government functions, and addressing emerging issues. Regardless of the distribution of these functions, the ministry is still centralized in its grassroots. This situation helps in the planning and coordination of its services.

It is nonetheless important to mention that the ministry of interior and coordination of the national government plays an instrumental role in overseeing security within the country. The department is responsible for managing citizenship and immigration policies, civilian oversight, controlling border activities, management of drug and narcotic substance control and the monitoring of correctional facilities. The events are done and coordinated by the various agencies within the ministry such as the Internal State Functions, Internal Security Affairs, Disaster and Emergency response and the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) (Molony, 2019). These agencies come into play whenever an issue arises that requires multi-agency coordination.

Department for Immigration

The department for immigration is crucial in enhancing the level of security within the country. In 2017, the government of Kenya made significant changes to policies concerning citizenship to address substantial concerns the national citizenry. Among the first changes implemented include that of the Immigration Act, Immigration regulation and Kenya Citizenship (2012), the East African One-Stop Border post (2016) and the East African Common Market Protocol. Before these amendments, the government of Kenya had made crucial changes to the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, adding section 5a to 5d (Nolasco, 2017). These amendments included the incorporation of the Border Control Operations Coordinating Committee (BCOCC), whose function was to facilitate inter-agency coordination concerning the management of the country’s borders. The committee was also formed to address challenges in immigration that have been fuel by armed conflicts, radicalization and the instability in the neighbouring countries. Through the inter-agency coordination of the BCOCC, problems such as terrorism and human trafficking are expected to reduce drastically, considering that a new immigration manual has already been drafted.

The Kenya Wildlife Service

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is a government department formed pursuant to Section 376 of the Wildlife Act, section 376. Section 3(1) of the Act specifies that a Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is defined as a single and disciplined service (Engel & Porto, 2009). The Service is managed per Section 3B by the Service Trustees Board which, as indicated in Section 3B(e), comprises of the Commissioner of the Police (inspector general of Police IGP under the new constitution), the Principal Secretary of Finance responsible according to Section 3B (c), Section 3B (g) of that constitution, amongst others.

The Ministry for Internal Security and National Government Co-ordination is the Minister responsible for internal security, according to the new Constitution 2010. The other representation in the Board of Directors is provided by Section 3B(f), which is also a structured agency and which, in times of uncertainty and potential instability, delivers support services to the National Police Service (Wepundi et al., 2012). The KWS is one of the controlled services that, in cases of instability in the region, provides the NPS with IGP command and control officers to resolve these situations.

Challenges of the multi-agency approach to security in Kenya

The significant obstacles to collective security are rising the use of unilateral action by the big powers of the world, constant UN double standards and the lack of cohesion of foreign representatives such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Disley et al. (2016) report that the US is losing its war on terror while threatened terror continues to engrave many parts of the world, including the US. Power and Alison (2017) states that terrorist groups/individuals are outlets from all over the globe, including the United States. For places like Afghanistan or Iraq, the intervention of military forces in the world has not been so successful, because attackers often change tactics to circumvent the immense fighting power.

Richards (2017) has shown that following a hard-force US approach; terrorist attacks rose by 39 per cent in 2015 as opposed to 2013 with 83 per cent in 2015, owing to their targeted airstrikes against terrorist targets. Essentially, the incidence, lethality and influence in Europe, parts of South Asian territories and the Arab world are still alarmingly multiplying Islamic extremist organizations.

Since such ability cannot be comparable to developed states in African states like Kenya, it would be prudent to focus on soft power that would if supported by the experienced, produce better results. This approach is preferable rather than the use of hard power that degrades weak economies on the continent. In coping with anti-terrorism operations, Kenya faces challenges like any other nation. Given the initiative, the challenge to its ability to stop it developed quite quickly. The overarching problem to shield terrorists under the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens emerges a misuse of the political room, and the people criticize government decisions unfairly, regardless of whether it aims to counter the terrorist threat (HIRBO, 2018).

National development resources hamper other challenges in developing countries for counter-terrorism, such as providing health services, food, or even national development. Kenya has a long (684 KM) border with the troubled Somali, a terrorist haven that extends its security assets, particularly military (Wepundi et al., 2012). Molony’s (2019) report shows that the youth unemployment rate of around one million Kenyans a year remains maximum in the subregion. It renders terrorist groups more vulnerable to recruiting with a promise of better livelihoods. It will also eliminate counter-terrorism if we reduce this false promise.

Conclusion

The rationale for employing the multi-agency approach in dealing with security issues in Kenya is necessary to create a pull of resources to fight terrorism and other insecurity threats in the country. As discussed above, the ministry of interior and coordination of national government, the department of the immigration and the Kenya Wildlife service come together in security situations that need the multi-agency approach. The approach also makes security services in the country lighter hence the need for the multi-approach in dealing with terror. Nonetheless, the country still faces several issues about its multi-agency approach to fighting terror. The lack of support from developed countries such as the United States and the lack of cohesion among the big powers limits the efficiency of the multi-agency approach in countering terror in the country. Besides, the poor state of the country’s economy limits the availability of resources that can be used to facilitate the response of the different agencies concerning security threats in the country. This is especially the case considering the high number of unemployed youths in the country that translates to high crime rates.

References

Disley, E., Pardal, M., Weed, K., & Reding, A. (2016). Using Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements to manage and supervise terrorist offenders.

Engel, U., & Porto, J. G. (2009). The African Union’s New Peace and Security Architecture: Toward an Evolving Security Regime? African Security, 2(2–3), 82–96.

HIRBO, J. S. (2018). ASSESMENT OF THE NATURE OF SECURITY CHALLENGES ON THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER BETWEEN KENYA AND SOMALIA.

Molony, T. (2019). Social media warfare and Kenya’s conflict with Al Shabaab in Somalia: A right to know? African Affairs, 118(471), 328–351.

Nolasco, L. K. (2017). The Management of Conflicts in Kenya. Nairobi: Acts Press.

Power, N., & Alison, L. (2017). Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 51–76.

Richards, J. (2017). State Policy and Strategy: Prevent,“Multi-agency” Responses, and the Way Forward. In Extremism, Radicalization and Security (pp. 173–201). Springer.

Wepundi, M., Nthiga, E., Kabuu, E., Murray, R., & Alvazzi del Frate, A. (2012). Availability of small arms and perceptions of security in Kenya: An assessment. Citeseer.