Judges decline to reinstate 8 clauses in new security laws
Kenya’s Attorney-General Githu Muigai gestures during a past news conference. Muigai had asked the Court of Appeal to quash orders suspending eight clauses of the new security law. The three-judge bench ruled on Friday that it would not be in the public interest to enact a law that will violate the very rights the State is seeking to protect. PHOTO | FILE
What you need to know:
Although the judges said the AG’s appeal was arguable, they were not convinced enough to reinstate the laws only based on alleged threats to Kenya’s security by terrorists.
Nairobi. The government Friday suffered a major blow in its attempt to enforce tough security laws after the Court of Appeal refused to reinstate suspended clauses.
The three-judge bench ruled that it would not be in the public interest to enact a law that will violate the very rights the State is seeking to protect.
Their ruling hands a major victory to the opposition Cord and human rights groups which are opposed the proposals.
This followed a request by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions for the eight clauses to be reinstated while a case against the disputed laws is heard.
“When amending any law that touches on national security, Parliament must ensure there is no violation of human rights which is part of that national security,” justices Daniel Musinga, Patrick Kiage and Agnes Murgor ruled.
They said human rights are part of Kenya’s democratic process and not even the State can remove them.
The judges dismissed AG Githu Muigai’s appeal, ruling that the balance of convenience favours the public who will suffer most if the laws violate their rights.
“When the government appeals against a ruling, it is assumed it does so in the interest of the public. It is not however in the interest of the public to enact a law that will violate the very public rights the State is seeking to protect,” ruled the judges.
Although the judges said the AG’s appeal was arguable, they were not convinced enough to reinstate the laws only based on alleged threats to Kenya’s security by terrorists.
They dismissed Prof Muigai and DPP Keriako Tobiko’s arguments that suspension of the clauses had hampered the fight against terrorism, ruling that Kenya has sufficient laws to deal with insecurity.
“They did not demonstrate that suspending the clauses had created a great vacuum in the law. Apart from the eight sections, other clauses are operational including other laws which have been used to fight insecurity. Security agents can still use existing laws to protect citizens,” ruled the judges.
Their decision was a second victory for the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) and human rights organizations who are challenging the constitutionality of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014.
(NMG)
