By Tajeu Shadrack Nkapapa
The Cabinet Secretary (CS) nominee for Interior Prof. Kithure Kindiki has distanced himself from Police brutality witnessed during the Gen Z’s protest.
He appeared before the Parliament Committee on Public Appointment for vetting on 1st August 2024 and explained the events of the past two months amid anti-government protest by the young people when he served as the CS for the same docket of Interior and National Administration.
During vetting Prof. Kindiki said that he cannot be responsible for the police brutality experienced during protest because the Police Service is an Independent service that operates only under instructions of the Inspector General.
He added that the roles of a CS Interior are limited only to instruct policy and not to instruct operations.
According to Prof. Kindiki his work was mainly to provide policy guidelines to the organs of the National Security team as per the Constitution.
“Ministers don’t instruct operations, they instruct policy. I can only resign if my policy instruction is unconstitutional or illegal,” he said.
The nominee was accused of remaining silent during the period of anti-government protest that saw many Kenyans losing their lives, where majority were shot by Police and others abducted. Kindiki stated that it was among his roles to give Police Service any instructions for an operation of National security.
“The reason that I didn’t talk every day is because the events were mainly operational issues. The work of the Interior CS as envisaged in Article 25 of the Constitution is to give the organs of national security policy guidance and direction. The police is under independent command,” he said.
“It is unfortunate that during recent protests, we witnessed the deaths of 42 Kenyans, 486 civilians and 285 police injured. We had about 1,387 arrests, 54 police cars destroyed and 110 vehicles also destroyed, therefore I want to say the operational responsibility lies within the National Police Service,” he added,
The Interior CS nominee pointed out that the issue of use of firearms by an officer is individual and that any officer has individual responsibility on how to use their firearms.