Oversight of Kenya’s Counterterrorism Measures on Al-Shabaab

Khamala Charles Alenga ()
Additional contact information
Khamala Charles Alenga: Law school, Africa Nazarene University, Nairobi, Kenya

The Law and Development Review, 2019, vol. 12, issue 1, 79-118

Abstract: Citing comparative US, UK and European jurisprudence, this article proposes a pre-inchoate offence to punish terror suspects at the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. It traces the Kenya government’s twenty-first-century responses to distorted jihad fundamentalism culminating in the current escalating pogroms. Coercive executive counterterrorism responses make exceptions to universal human rights enshrined under liberal democratic constitutions and international instruments. Yet the legality principle constrains the use of pre-inchoate offences. Hence civil society’s resistance delayed the enactment of Kenya’s Prevention of Terrorism Act. Moreover, the Constitutional Court subsequently struck out as ‘vague and ambiguous’ the Security Law (Amendment) Act’s substantive provision which ‘presumed criminal intent for encouraging terror’. Procedurally, another dilemma arises. This concerns whether it is possible for an international terror suspect to have a fair domestic trial. Although ‘limited executive measures’ require some individuals to trade off their own liberties to safeguard the security of others, due diligence can prevent torture or targeted killings. Instead, following Kenyan ‘Operation Linda Nchi’s’ pre-emptive strikes since 2011, Al-Shabaab’s retaliation arguably spiralled into increased violations of the core human right to life. Enacting pre-inchoate offences instead deems Islamist terrorists, particularly secondary offenders, as rational actors. Using a ‘reverse harm thesis’ to justify the education of pre-inchoate offenders, I argue that regional criminal trials of terror suspects constitute better ‘effective oversight’ on human rights violations than executive, legislative or domestic judicial responses. Invoking ‘concurrent responsibility’ to prosecute Al-Shabaab suspects before the ACJHR can therefore facilitate AMISOM’s dignified ‘exit’ strategy from Somalia.

Keywords: Kenya; terrorism; pre-inchoate crimes; Security Laws (Amendment) Act; Malabo Protocol (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2018-0010 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:79-118:n:3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ldr/html

DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2018-0010

Access Statistics for this article

The Law and Development Review is currently edited by Yong-Shik Lee

More articles in The Law and Development Review from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().