Last week, the BBC broke a story pointing to the possibility that both the Kalenjin and the Gikuyu communities in the Rift Valley are arming themselves with conventional weapons. The story was picked up the next day by local media houses and the key quotations to back up the BBC's claims were given by Ken Wafula, who works with a human rights organisation in Eldoret. The government predictably came out to deny the possibility, arguing that its intelligence did not indicate the story to be true. By Friday, Wafula had been called in for questioning by the District Commission’s intelligence officer, and is now facing possible charges relating to the circulation of false and alarming information and incitement, should he be unable to substantiate the quotations attributed to him by local media houses.

The government’s immediate denial of the arming efforts is, of course, belied by the speed at which Wafula was picked up for interrogation. On the one hand, it is somewhat reassuring to know that the government did take the claims seriously enough to investigate them. On the other hand however, the initial denial – and worse, the charges against Wafula – can only contribute to the hesitancy of Kenyan citizens to come forward with more information on the same issue.

It is not that the possibility has not been discussed before in both the public and the private domains. The May 2009 report of the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Monitoring Project commissioned by Kofi Annan from South Consulting expressly mentions the same concern. Under the section ‘trends in disarmament’, the report notes the discovery of five arms caches in Nandi district in February 2009, pointing to the possibility of weapon flows into Kenya from neighbouring countries still faced with armed conflict. The report also notes that discussions on violence from those surveyed made frequent references to guns.

So much for the public domain. In the private domain it is not just those of us that work on human rights who have been receiving information on the weapons build-up within the Rift Valley from contacts and network members on the ground. Talk of weapons has apparently become common in certain business and professional circles as well. Within the last two weeks alone in otherwise social encounters (during which political matters are inevitably also discussed), I personally have received (admittedly anecdotal information and hearsay) about the same.

A medical professional who works in the Rift Valley told me of her shock at hearing claims, at a social gathering of her mostly Kalenjin peers, that almost everyone present had apparently armed themselves, supposedly ‘in preparation’. She could obviously not ascertain the truth of the claims. Neither could she clarify what the ‘preparation’ was for, beyond the obvious tensions that persist in the region.

Another colleague, meeting socially with a Gikuyu who owns a trucking company, professed to me his shock at hearing that this person not only easily and readily admitted to still making financial contributions to ‘the cause’, but that he also claimed to use his trucks, when requested, to move arms into the Gikuyu areas of the Rift Valley. Again, he could not ascertain the truth of the claims, or what 'the cause’ was, beyond the sense that the Gikuyu are determined not to be easy targets ever again.

Like I said, these are anecdotes and hearsay. The people sharing them with me had no means of ascertaining their truth and neither do I. Just as my organisation has had no means of ascertaining the truth of what is being said on these matters from contacts and network members in the field. We are not criminal investigators and have no powers to investigate the contents of people’s homes, trucks or property.

However, we do take the claims seriously, which is why we also take seriously the need for security sector reform, and a restoration of confidence, by all ethnic communities, in the security services' ability to act effectively, impartially and strategically (not to mention within the boundaries of the constitution and the law) to guarantee our protection. In addition, the security sector must be checked and reined in when that ability is clearly seen to be waning.

The government and only the government must hold the monopoly on the use of force (particularly armed force) within the country. Citizens must have faith in the government’s use of this monopoly to assure them of basic safety and security. The fact that these anecdotes even exist point to three alarming conclusions. Firstly, there is the clear possibility that the erosion of the government monopoly on the use of force is accelerating rather than decelerating. Secondly, the possibility that the erosion of citizens’ faith in the government to protect them within the boundaries of the constitution and the law is equally accelerating, rather than decelerating. Thirdly, there is the need to act with urgency and to at least acknowledge, if not address, what may underlie the persistent tensions in the Rift Valley, namely the legitimate grievances of so-called ‘host communities’ and the equally legitimate fears of so-called ‘settler communities’. Nobody can ever be safe in the Rift Valley unless and until that is done – until in fact, peace and reconciliation are approached far more deeply and fundamentally than current exhortations to basically ‘love your neighbour’ regardless.

Owning conventional arms is a crime unless owners are duly authorised and registered. Trading in conventional arms is equally a crime unless the traders are also duly authorised and registered. Using conventional arms offensively is a crime as well. That should be evident – but apparently it is not.

The first two conclusions are, or should be, of grave concern to us all. If with essentially makeshift and traditional weapons (farming implements as well as bows and arrows) over 1,000 Kenyans were killed in such a short space of time in 2008, imagine the numbers of deaths we would register if conventional small arms and assault weapons were to be used. The government should with haste investigate the BBC’s and the follow-up stories. In doing so, it should be careful not to penalise and punish those essentially trying to blow the whistle – especially when, as should be obvious, those most concerned about blowing the whistle have the least capacity to verify the evidence. There is a balance between trying to raise the red flag and unnecessary alarm. What weighs the balance is the public interest – and in this case, evidently, the broader public interest prevails.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* L. Muthoni Wanyeki is the executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.
* This article was first published in The East African.