Public Service CS Justin Muturi (inset) and President William Ruto greeting NIS boss Noordin Haji during his appointment.PHOTO/UGC.
By SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
The recent allegations by Public Service Cabinet Secretary Justin Muturi implicating the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and its Director General (DG), Noordin Haji, in a spate of abductions have sent shockwaves through Kenya’s political and security landscape.
These claims, particularly concerning the abduction of Muturi’s son, Leslie Muturi, have sparked intense debate on state accountability, the role of state security agencies, and the boundaries of public criticism by senior government officials.
The abduction of Leslie Muturi on June 22, 2024, underscores the gravity of the accusations. Armed, hooded assailants kidnapped Leslie along Dennis Pritt Road in Nairobi, an incident that prompted Muturi to engage various security heads, including the NIS DG, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
According to Muturi, despite their initial lack of assistance, President William Ruto’s intervention led to Haji confirming NIS’s involvement and securing Leslie’s release. This episode forms the core of Muturi’s criticism of the NIS.
As a senior government official, Muturi is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility, which mandates cabinet members to resolve disputes internally and present a unified front.
By publicly criticising the NIS, Muturi risks undermining this principle. Critics argue that his approach should have been procedural, raising concerns within the cabinet and through the Ministry of Interior, the agency overseeing NIS operations. Muturi’s decision to go public, therefore, raises questions about his motives and the appropriateness of his actions.
Muturi’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from allies within the government. Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi accused him of seeking political relevance, while others have suggested that he resign.
The Association of Retired Intelligence Officers (ARIO) condemned Muturi’s statements, urging support for the NIS and cautioning against politicising security issues.
The retired intelligence officers urged their colleagues to work diligently without fear in preserving the country’s security despite the challenges they are facing.
They urged Kenyan social media users and politicians to desist from politicizing security matter and desist from personalized attacks against NIS DG and the intelligence agency .
A coalition of religious leaders from Nairobi have also issued a strong condemnation of recent remarks made by Muturi linking the NIS to the reported abduction of his son in June terming them “reckless”.
In a press statement, the leaders criticized Muturi questioning his silence on the issue during his tenure as Attorney General.
Is CS Muturi someone’s echo-chamber determined to see Haji ejected as the DG of NIS or he is genuinely expressing his suffering and frustrations following his son’s abduction. Whatever the case, time will tell.
CS Interior and National Adminstration joins National Police Service (NPS) officers for interdenominal prayer service at Embakasi campus. PHOTO/NPS.
These reactions highlight the precarious balance between addressing legitimate concerns and maintaining the integrity of state institutions.
However, Muturi’s allegations cannot be divorced from Kenya’s historical context. The Nyayo era stands as a dark chapter in the nation’s history, characterized by the misuse of security agencies to suppress dissent.
Human rights abuses, including abductions and torture, detention without trial and jailing of suspects after office hours were rampant, often justified under the guise of national security.
At the heart of the controversy sparked by Muturi lies the need for transparency and accountability within Kenya’s security apparatus. The constitution provides a clear framework for dealing with criminal activities, emphasizing investigation, arrest, and prosecution over abductions or extrajudicial measures.
Muturi’s allegations, if substantiated, expose systemic flaws that demand urgent reform. It is incumbent upon the NIS DG to investigate these claims thoroughly and present findings to the President and the public. Failure to address these concerns risks eroding public trust in state institutions.
Speculation surrounds Muturi’s motives. Is he genuinely driven by personal suffering and frustration following his son’s abduction, or is he part of a larger political strategy to discredit the NIS DG?
While time will reveal the truth, the public nature of his allegations lends credence to the perception of a deeper agenda. Regardless, the focus must remain on addressing the root causes of these abductions and ensuring justice for the victims.
This controversy underscores the urgent need for a robust inquiry into the wave of abductions. The NIS must demonstrate its commitment to transparency by conducting an impartial investigation and holding any culpable individuals accountable.
Additionally, the government must reinforce mechanisms to prevent the misuse of security agencies, drawing lessons from the Nyayo era to ensure history does not repeat itself.Public discourse on security matters must strike a balance between accountability and national stability.
Politicians and social media users should exercise restraint, recognizing the potential consequences of politicising security issues. Only through collective efforts can Kenya safeguard its democracy and prevent a return to its dark past.
Public Service Cabinet Secretary Justin Muturi. PHOTO/UGC
CS Muturi’s allegations against the NIS and its DG represent a critical juncture in Kenya’s governance and security discourse. While his concerns highlight systemic issues that demand urgent attention, the manner in which they were raised raises questions about his adherence to governmental protocols and his broader motivations.
To address CS Muturi’s allegations against President Ruto must take a balanced and strategic approach that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and national stability.
He can among other things establish an independent commission to investigate the allegations of abductions linked to state agencies, including the NIS. This body should consist of credible members from civil society, legal experts, and retired judicial officers to ensure impartiality.
The commission’s findings should be made public to restore trust and hold accountable any individuals or entities found culpable.
The president can also enhance parliamentary and independent oversight of intelligence and security operations to prevent misuse of power and encourage the establishment of stronger reporting and accountability protocols within the NIS and other security agencies.
President Ruto’s response to these allegations must demonstrate decisive leadership while balancing the need for accountability and national stability. By addressing the matter transparently and responsibly, he can reinforce public trust in his administration and the country’s security agencies.
The President’s actions should be guided by the National Intelligence Service Act, 2012, and its internal regulations, including its Code of Conduct, which outline the expectations, duties, and disciplinary measures for officers.
While the exact language of the NIS Code of Conduct may not be publicly accessible due to its sensitive nature, key principles and processes are generally derived from the NIS Act and similar frameworks governing intelligence agencies globally.
It has to be noted that NIS officers are required to act with integrity, professionalism, impartiality, and in compliance with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and violations of ethical standards, abuse of office, misconduct, or engagement in unlawful activities can result in disciplinary action.
As Kenya grapples with these revelations, the focus must remain on upholding constitutional principles, fostering transparency, and ensuring that justice prevails for all victims of abduction and state overreach.
