Why everyone’s talking guns

Mid-last week, the British Broadcasting Corporation broke a story pointing to the possibility of arming, with conventional weapons, of both the Kalenjin and the Gikuyu communities in the Rift Valley.

The story was picked up the next day by local media houses — with key quotations to back up the BBC claims being given by Ken Wafula, who works with a human rights organisation in Eldoret.

The government, predictably, came out to deny the possibility — arguing that its intelligence did not indicate that the story could be true.

By Friday, Wafula had been called in for questioning by the District Commission’s Intelligence Officer, and is now facing possible charges relating to the circulation of false and alarming information and/or incitement should he be unable to substantiate the quotations attributed to him by local media houses.

The government’s immediate denial is, of course, belied by the speed at which Wafula was picked up for interrogation.

On the one hand, it is somewhat reassuring to know that the government did take the claims seriously enough to investigate them.

On the other hand, however, the initial denial — and, worse, the charges against Wafula — can only contribute to the hesitancy of Kenyan citizens to come forward with information.

For it is not that the possibility has not been discussed before — in both public and the private domains.

The May 2009 report of the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Monitoring Project, commissioned by Kofi Annan from South Consulting, expressly mentions this concern.

Under the section “trends in disarmament,” the report notes the interception of five arms caches in Nandi district in February 2009, pointing to the possibility of arms flows into the country from neighbouring countries still in armed conflict.

The report also notes that discussions on violence from those surveyed made frequent references to guns.

So much for the public domain.

In the private domain, it is not just those of us who work on human rights who have been receiving information on militias arming within the Rift Valley from contacts and network members on the ground.

Talk of arming has, apparently, become common in certain business and professional circles as well.

Within the past two weeks alone, in otherwise social encounters, I personally have received (admittedly anecdotal information and hearsay) about the same.

A medical professional who works in the Rift Valley told me of her shock at hearing claims, at a social gathering of her peers, that almost everyone present had apparently armed themselves, supposedly “in preparation.”

She could not, obviously, ascertain the truth of the claims.

Neither could she clarify what the “preparation” was for — beyond the obvious tensions that persist in the region.

And another colleague, meeting with a friend who owns a trucking company, again socially, professed to me his own shock at hearing that this person readily admitting not only to still making financial contributions to “the cause,” but also to the use of his trucks, when requested, to move arms to his community in the Rift Valley.

Again, obviously, he could not ascertain the truth or not of the claims.

Or what the “cause” was — beyond the sense from the conversation that this particular community are determined not to be such easy targets ever again.

Like I said, these are anecdotes and hearsay.

The people sharing them with me had no means of ascertaining their truth. And neither do I.

Just as my organisation has had no means of ascertaining the truth of what is being said on these matters from contacts and network members in the field.

We are not criminal investigators and have no powers to investigate the contents of people’s homes or trucks or whatever.

But we do take them seriously.

Which is why we also take seriously the need for security sector reform — and a restoration of confidence, among all ethnic communities, in the security services’ ability to act effectively, impartially and strategically to guarantee our protection.

And to be checked and reined in when that ability is clearly seen to be wanting.

The government — and only the government — must hold the monopoly on the use of force (particularly armed force) within the country.

And citizens must have faith in the government’s use of that monopoly to assure them of basic safety and security.

That these anecdotes and hearsay even exist point, however, to three alarming conclusions.

First, the clear possibility that the erosion of that government monopoly on the use of force is accelerating rather than decelerating.

Second, the possibility that the erosion of citizens’ faith in the government to protect them — within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law — is equally accelerating.

And third, the need to act with urgency to at least acknowledge, if not address, what may underlie the persistent tensions in the Rift Valley — namely the legitimate grievances of so-called host communities and the equally legitimate fears of so-called settler communities.

Nobody can ever be safe in the Rift Valley unless and until that is done — until, in fact, peace and reconciliation are approached far more deeply and fundamentally than current exhortations to basically love your neighbour regardless.

Which is not to justify crime.

Owning conventional arms is a crime unless owners are duly authorised and registered.

Trading in conventional arms is equally a crime unless the traders are also duly authorised and registered.

Using conventional arms offensively is a crime as well. That should be evident — but apparently is not.

The first two conclusions are — or should be — of grave concern to us all.

If, with essentially makeshift and traditional weapons (farming implements and bows and arrows), over 1,000 Kenyans could be killed in such a short space of time in 2008, imagine the numbers of deaths we could register with conventional small arms and assault weapons. So yes, the government should investigate, with haste, the BBC and follow-up stories.

And, in doing so, it should be careful not to penalise and punish those essentially trying to blow the whistle — especially when, as should be obvious, those most concerned about blowing the whistle as probably those with the least capacity to verify facts.

There is a balance between trying to raise the red flag and unnecessary alarm.

What weighs the balance is the public interest — and in this case, evidently, the broader public interest prevails.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is the Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)