How Ruto is bandying terror charges to scare Gen-Z from demos

On Friday evening, a section of lawyers and rights activists convened a Space meeting on the social media platform X to discuss what they said was an alarming decision by the state to charge suspects of looting and arson with terrorism.

Many doubted that the Director of Public Prosecutions would approve the terrorism charges, whose threshold they said the Constitution had set very high. The lingering debate throughout their engagement, however, was why they thought the state had opted for terrorism and not other offences that are prescribed in the Public Order Act.

“To create a chilling effect on the general public,” said Tali Israel, a lawyer who predominantly contributed to the discussion. “To create fear as against exercising the constitutional right to demonstrate peacefully.”

Tali would point out that judges and magistrates would, in most instances, be inclined to set high bail terms for terror suspects owing to the gravity of the offence, as opposed to terms for suspects accused of violating public order.

Rights activist Hussein Khalid yesterday told the Sunday Standard that the terrorism charges would be counterproductive as they risk scaring investors, wary that the government had failed to contain an outbreak of terrorism, hence the “many terror suspects.”

As to who was interested in spreading this “chilling effect” that Tali spoke about, there was little doubt that he meant President William Ruto’s administration.

This is because Dr Ruto has recently talked tough against protesters, whom his government views as “terrorists, anarchists and coup plotters.”

Throughout his presidency, soon turning three years old, the Head of State’s words have been a window to his thoughts, and a preamble to the action that would follow.

Whenever Ruto talks tough, security agencies, which the President said would be independent when he assumed office in 2022, act tougher. Indeed, his assertion that “enough is enough” exposed his anger at the protests that had shaken his administration to its very core, and preceded the charging of nearly 40 young Kenyans with terrorism.  

When he uttered those very words in July last year, what followed was a spate of abductions of government critics that has persisted to date.

Ruto has shown that he struggles to see the legitimacy of the demonstrations, staged to agitate for good governance, holding the police accountable for crimes against protesters and an end to corruption, among other grievances.

And so he will resort to force to crush whatever dissent he encounters on his path. Police have met peaceful protesters with live bullets, tear gas and water cannons, killing and maiming Kenyans.

They have done this after “outlawing” protests, a constitutional right that Kenyans ought to enjoy, which has exposed the police service as very much an appendage of the Executive.

“The state has a duty to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to picketing, but its policy has often been to oppose them,” said Bobby Mkangi, a constitutional lawyer. “Charging protesters with terrorism is the height of desperation and shows the government is unable to deal with issues confronting Kenyans.”

Government functionaries have painted the protests in unsavoury terms, the latest being terrorism. But besides charging suspected looters and arsonists, as well as peaceful protesters, with terrorism, the government has embraced the shooting, to either injure or kill, of protesters.

Ruto recently ordered the National Police Service to shoot rioters in the leg, days after Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen said he would have had “no problem” if the police had shot at protesters who stormed police stations.

Murkomen also promised to shield overstepping law enforcement officers by sabotaging investigations, a dangerous pronouncement that threatens the pursuit of justice by victims of police brutality.

The police service has recently faced accusations of tampering with key evidence of their action, such as misreporting cases of deaths caused by bullets from an apparent police killer squad.

Some 115 protesters have been killed since the youth-led anti-government protests began last year, a stark reminder of the state’s effectiveness in meting out brutality. The number, according to other accounts by rights groups, could be higher.

The killings did not start last year. Ruto had barely settled into office when the opposition, then led by former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, staged the 2023 protests over the high cost of living and grievances related to the 2022 presidential election.

Against available evidence and a decision by the Supreme Court, Raila had claimed he was cheated out of victory, and rallied the masses around the cost of living  in deadly protests that the opposition said claimed more than 70 of its supporters.

The opposition coalition would suspend the demonstrations, saying their move was motivated by the need to prevent further loss of life. Amid massive deaths, Gen-Z have also been urged to end this year’s protests to preserve lives. Similar calls featured last year.

Amid it all, the government has sought to play down the deadly effects of police actions, often quoting lower figures of fatalities.

Abductions have also been a means of cracking down on dissent. Tens of Kenyans. By last December, the state-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights had documented 82 abductions involving state critics, many of whom have challenged the government on social media.

Ruto has previously denied that abductions were taking place and later promised to end them. However, they have continued, with the National Intelligence Service accused of conducting them.

The President has consistently acted strongly against dissent, but under immense pressure, he has shown that he can cave. Last year, he engaged Gen Z on X, but went back on promises that he would end abductions and ensure better governance.

Kenyans had seen this side of Ruto in 2023. Under pressure from the opposition, the Head of State extended an olive branch to Raila, which led to two rounds of talks. An initial one, the parliamentary ‘bipartisan’ process, collapsed under the weight of growing mistrust.

A subsequent one, through the National Dialogue Committee, birthed a report that reformed the electoral commission. But it was only implemented when Gen-Z pressured Ruto last year. For the most part, the President had strung Raila along, inviting frequent protests from opposition lawmakers involved in the dialogue.

To tame online dissent, the government has proposed strict regulation of social media. The government has often restricted social media during protests. According to NetBlocks, a global internet observatory that monitors cybersecurity and digital rights, access to Telegram in Kenya dropped sharply during this year’s June 25 commemorative protests.

Ruto’s administration has also targeted the Press with closures for broadcasting demonstrations live. KTN, NTV and K24 had their signals arbitrarily switched off last month.

“Ruto has performed very poorly in handling dissent,” said Gitile Naituli, a professor of leadership and management. “He should learn from other presidents, who mostly ignored dissent. Once he expresses anger, he shows that he has lost the plot.”