Why we need a new model of policing

A credible, impartial and independent police service is crucial to the development of a stable democracy, the creation of an open-market economy and the development of political and social structures representative of the values and needs of society.

The security problem in Kenya has never been about money. Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Nkaissery was once reported warning Parliament not to cut the security budget. The CS has never provided a coherent, comprehensive security policy with a clear implementation plan.

No matter how much money is pumped into the security sector, there will be no tangible results without a major paradigm shift in security governance.

Capacity to address threats focusing on systems, processes, and institutions that reinforce democratic security sector governance, oversight and accountability for security agencies is very weak. Effective oversight of the security organs is key to ensure performance, value for money, greater transparency and accountability of the security sector to the people and to the law.

Further, a Nairobi-controlled and centralised National Police Service is irrelevant. Britain has a significant decentralised democratic policing and law enforcement system, where communities and local authorities have greater say and role. The local population elects the police commissioner.

The country has a national crime agency as its premier agency. There are special operations police units to give technical support to local police units and the national crime agency in case of serious emergency.

While national security is subject to the Constitution and Parliament, and is a function of the national government, the country cannot feign ignorance of the reality on the ground. Kenya does not need constitutional amendments to actualise decentralised community-oriented policing service (do not confuse this with community policing). Community-oriented policing service demands first the existence of a credible, impartial, accountable and trustworthy police service.

This model of policing and law enforcement embraces ‘policing by consent', where law enforcement agencies enjoy public trust, legitimacy and support based upon transparency and integrity.

The national government and Council of Governors should trigger Article 187 and 189 (Transfer of functions and powers between levels of governments) of the Constitution to restructure and create coordination frameworks between county governments and the National Police Service.

This would address security and policing concerns at the county level, enhance accountability and maximise the available limited resources for efficiency and impact of security services delivery. The Ministry of Internal Security and the Council of Governors' technical team should develop a policy framework for discussion and adoption at the Summit in order to decentralise the National Police Service.

The policy would address three components namely need to separate general law and order maintenance functions of law enforcement agencies from crime detection, prevention and investigations; creation of national crime agency; and establishment of County Policing and Law Enforcement Police Service.

This would see substantive ‘decentralisation’ and strengthening of policing and law enforcement at the county level aimed at addressing crime and security challenges informed by local dynamics conditions, streamlining coordinated actions, creating leeway for less bureaucratic decision making by local policing and law enforcement agencies, and enhancing local accountability to the people for Police Service.

At the national level, establish a national, professional and credible well-resourced crime agency crime with the responsibility of tackling crime-affecting inter-counties, national and international implications. The County Policing and Law Enforcement Police Service would be responsible for public safety and security at the county level.

The national government would establish special operation police unit(s) spread across the country manning borders and with ability to be deployed within short notice to assist the County Law Enforcement Police Service in the event of emergency. The national government’s role is restricted to the security financial support of the counties and the issuance of security guidelines and policies.

Brazil and Japan have semi-centralised or dually controlled police systems. National bodies like national police service commission exercise indirect powers of supervision over police agencies in the sub-national states (counties) through appointments and the formulation of policies while the operational command and control remains the responsibility of the appointed police officer in charge at states (counties) with county governments providing the civilian oversight. India and Pakistan have decentralised police systems.

Law and order is a state (county) function. The operational command and control of the police agencies is the exclusive responsibility of the state governments (county governments) while the role of the central (national) government is limited to financial support only.

In the United Kingdom and USA, police officers serving in regional offices (state) carry out law enforcement complemented by nation-wide agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Crime Agency and specialist security operation agencies like the Specialist Operations directorate of the Metropolitan Police and that of FBI.