Why Kenya’s proposal to execute convicted poachers is a bad idea

Wednesday May 30 2018

KWS ranger displays elephant tusks and game meat seized from poachers in central Kenya on January 8, 2011. Relevant government agencies should collaborate with global actors in building a wildlife crime busting network. AFP PHOTO | KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICES


Wildlife poaching in Kenya may soon be a capital offence, punishable by death. The proposal has surfaced because people believe existing penalties aren’t stringent enough, and because of the huge burden that poaching places on the country.

Poaching threatens wildlife populations.

The loss of wildlife threatens one of the pillars of Kenya’s tourism industry, and therefore its economy, as well as the survival of some species.

Poaching is also a security risk as it presents challenges to the military and police, which can be outgunned by poachers and their criminal allies.

Currently, a conviction of wildlife crime in Kenya, involving endangered and threatened species, attracts the country’s severest punishment: A life sentence or fine of not less than Ksh20 million ($200,000).

But the death penalty proposal is ill-advised for at least three reasons. First, it goes against the global trend away from using the death penalty.


Second, poachers are already willing to risk their lives, so it won’t work as a deterrent. And finally, rather than putting in new laws, the government should address what’s wrong with the current laws which offer sufficient penalties.

Human dignity

The reliance on the death penalty is declining both globally and locally. It’s seen as undermining human dignity and is an obstacle to protecting human rights.

There’s also been a shift in thinking in Kenya. While the death penalty is still on the books, there hasn’t been an execution in nearly 30 years.

There have also been cases where Kenya’s court of appeal has ruled that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional and presidents have commuted death sentences to life imprisonment.

Secondly, Kenya has a shoot to kill policy for tackling poaching which dates back to 1989. This has been largely ineffective. If poachers are already willing to take risks, then the death penalty won’t deter them.

Finally, the 2013 Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, which increased penalties for wildlife crime, has only been in force for about five years. This isn’t enough time to gauge its effectiveness.

The real focus should be on existing laws. The government should address what may be wrong with them, including the penalties they carry.

Several factors could explain why they may not be successful. These include: lax enforcement and under resourced government agencies such as the Kenya Wildlife Service.


It is only prudent that Kenya reconsider the death penalty proposal. It should consider the following suggestions.

Firstly, the economic empowerment of conservation area communities by ensuring that wildlife conservation works for them.

While tourism contributes significantly to the country’s economy, communities who share their lands with wildlife often continue to live in poverty. They also bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict including the loss of life, injuries from attacks and loss of property. Poaching will become undesirable if tourism delivers benefits.

Secondly, ensure that relevant government agencies, such as the Kenya Wildlife Services and Kenya Police, are well resourced and accountable.

Thirdly, new national institutions, like the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association, should be given more decision-making authority. Their effective involvement would mean real empowerment for communities and would ensure community buy-in on policies. This is an integral step in ensuring wildlife security.

Lastly, relevant government agencies should also try and collaborate with global actors in building a wildlife crime busting network. Past experience shows this is an effective strategy in addressing poaching.

For example, the collaboration between the Kenya Wildlife Service and the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) led to the arrest of a suspected poaching boss, Feizal Ali Mohammed, accused of trafficking large quantities of ivory.

Ultimately, tackling Kenya’s poaching problem requires a multi-layered, comprehensive approach which involves all stakeholders including government, non-governmental organisations, local and global communities and ensures the protection of human rights and dignity.

An approach that involves the death penalty as a quick fix for convicted poachers doesn’t fit this bill.