NO WITNESS PROTECTION
However, years of mistrust in the police force mean there is no guarantee people will volunteer information.
The lack of a witness protection scheme in Kenya means that anyone who provides information implicating a member of the force cannot expect to be safe from retribution. Although victims can report incidents of abuse anonymously, they are often summoned later to provide live testimony to the panel in front of the officer concerned.
“Protection of witnesses is a must, because the lives of witnesses are risked,” Wainaina said. “They have therefore shied away from giving evidence and participating in the exercise altogether. The vetting board is fully aware that protection is mandatory. Experts have explained so many times that without protection, the exercise becomes a sham.”
Nearly a year into its mandate, it remains unclear how far the vetting programme will achieve its goal of rooting out rogue officers.
Some critics fear that public mistrust runs so deep that it will be very hard for the NPSC to engage their interest, even if it makes wholesale changes.
In Wainaina’s view, people “just do not care”.
But others like Kiama are more optimistic. He believes that if the NPSC implements the recommendations made by the police reforms working group, the vetting exercise will still serve its purpose.
“We still have 99 per cent of officers to be vetted. There is still leeway to salvage this,” Kiama said.
(This article is part of IWPR’s Kenya Security series. It was produced as part of a media development programme implemented by IWPR and Wayamo Communication Foundation in partnership with Capital FM)
About The Author
