CIC urges court to heed State data on Security Act case

The Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution (CIC) has asked the High Court to pay attention to the reasons being offered by the State as grounds for amending the security laws.

The watchdog said in court papers filed on Thursday that the court should only make its decision after considering the State’s justification for the controversial clauses.

CIC made the submission as a friend of the court in a suit filed by the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) in a bid to quash the Security Act (Amendment) 2014, which President Uhuru Kenyatta assented to on December 19.

The watchdog wants the court to consider the Attorney-General’s argument in reaching a final determination, adding that the State needs to balance people’s rights and freedoms with their security.

“It is important that this court recognizes that the State is the one which is in a position to justify to the court why the proposed limitations are necessary. The court’s decision ought to be informed by the State’s policy, supported by factual evidence and data on the realities that inform the need for limitation,” CIC said.

Cord’s suit has been consolidated with two others filed by the Kenya National Human Rights Commission and lawyer Samuel Njuguna Ng’ang’a.

READ: City lawyer joins Cord in opposing security laws

The plaintiffs want the new laws set aside, arguing that they will violate Kenyans’ right to fair trial, promote discrimination and kick out hundreds of thousands of refugees.

CIC, which advised the president on some of the contentious clauses, has said in court papers that protection of private and public interest is vital and should be undertaken at the high cost of limitation of some rights if necessary.

The matter is before five High Court judges and will today go into the final day of hearing.

Justices Isaac Lenaola, Mumbi Ngugi, Louis Onguto, Hilary Chemitei and Hedwig Ong’udi are Friday expected to give a ruling date on their decision.

The Refugee Consortium, a lobby which was admitted to the suit, Thursday told the court that the laws as passed are vague.

Lawyer John Chigiti said that they do not define some of the remedies to insecurities proposed, which is against the spirit of the Constitution.
He also challenged the power given to security organs to intercept civilian communication.

“It does not define what undermining security investigation is. The clause on interception of communication is an unmitigated heresy as the interception is not based on suspicion of a particular individual. It is arbitrary,” he said.