Demonstration Bill sparks fears of State overreach and silenced voices

The government could soon have sweeping powers over protests, including deciding when and where they can happen, under a new law spearheaded by Mbeere North MP Geoffrey Ruku.

The proposed Assemblies and Demonstrations Bill 2024 seeks to bar protests on highways and other public spaces, claiming they disrupt public order.

If passed, it will grant the Interior Cabinet Secretary authority to set strict rules on how demonstrations are conducted.

Currently open to public participation, the Bill has sparked debate over its potential impact on civil liberties, especially among rights groups.

.

Keep Reading business

•  Love for fine suits turns pharmacist into fashion designer sensation
•  The struggles of doing business next to learning institutions
•  Metrofile and KARMA partner to boost Kenya's digital transformation
•  Airport concession: A global trend with immense benefits if done competitively
•  One dollar investment can yield Sh1,070 in digital economy, says new study

The proposal comes in the wake of recent Gen Z-led protests over Adani’s anticipated takeover of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and the Finance Bill 2024.

In his proposal to the Kenya Airports Authority, Adani Airport Holdings Ltd. required that laws be changed to favour his takeover. The agreement reportedly includes clauses stipulating that Adani must be compensated for any losses due to government actions, parliamentary decisions, or public protests that disrupt project feasibility.

Kisii Senator Richard Onyonka criticised the Bill, arguing that it limits Kenyans’ rights and deepens state capture.

“The law wants to criminalise demonstrations, which are recognized in the constitution as public participation,” he said, adding, “Adani and their local partners are pushing draconian laws to secure state capture.”

During his vetting for Interior CS position, now Deputy President Kithure Kindiki remarked that, if reappointed, he would establish designated protest areas. These zones, he argued, would help prevent violence and property damage during public gatherings.

Kindiki stated that the proposals would require protest organisers to inform police in advance of expected turnout, arguing this could help prevent deaths and property damage.

“It will also designate public institutions in all arms of the government to designate areas in their precincts or in the vicinity of their precincts where a group of protesters who want to demonstrate or present a petition to that public institution can assemble,” Kindiki told the National Assembly Committee on Appointments.

National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah supported the proposal during Kindiki’s vetting, attributing recent clashes between police and protesters to the lack of designated “picketing corners.”

“Kenyans think they can picket everywhere, even in restricted areas,” he stated.

Under the proposed law, violators could face heavy fines from Sh100,000 shillings, long prison sentences, or even the death penalty under Kenya’s Penal Code.

“A person intending to convene an assembly or demonstration shall notify the regulating officer of such intent at least three days, but not more than 14 days before the proposed date of the assembly or demonstration,” reads the proposed law in part. 

The Bill already cleared and now in its second reading in Parliament, spells out stringent compliance from both organisers and participants.

In an interview with KTN, Ruku said that the Bill has received support from Kenyans during public participation and that the Committee on Justice will develop a report before final reading.

“Most demonstrations have turned violent, and people have lost lives while others have lost property. We want to have good place to demonstrate,” Ruku said adding, “For instance, we will amend to ensure that State House provides an acre where people who want to demonstrate can stay for months so that the President can listen to them.”

Soyinka Lempaa, a Nairobi-based advocate and human rights crusader, criticised the Bill, arguing that the mover had not justified his clamour to curtail freedoms of expression as guaranteed in the constitution. 

Under the Bill, law enforcement could cancel or limit gatherings they perceive as unsafe. The Interior CS would have the authority to create specific protest regulations, giving the executive branch unprecedented control over public assemblies.

Lempaa observed that the new Bill was unconstitutional and being fronted by the government to limit civil liberties, as it explicitly delegates legislative powers to the CS and restricts certain fundamental rights.

“The Bill is introducing public order and public safety, through back door. It is illegal,” Lempaa said.

The CS would control notification protocols, and impose obligations on event marshals. Other mandates include environmental protection measures and liability for damages or disruptions.

“This Bill delegates legislative powers to the CS and limits fundamental rights and freedoms,” the Bill admits.

Human rights groups argue that the Bill risks encroaching on freedom of assembly. By consolidating control in the executive, it could effectively eliminate spontaneous gatherings and reduce the public’s ability to voice grievances. Critics say the advance-notice requirement and criminal penalties could deter many from protesting.

Supporters of the Bill maintain that it is a necessary measure for public safety. They argue that the legislation would allow peaceful assemblies without infringing on others’ rights.