Ruto Competes With Uhuru In Refusal To Use Head

[MOON Ki]

• Tweet

Deputy President William Ruto has given the United Nations three months to close the Dadaab refugee camps failing which Kenya will forcefully return them to Somalia.

http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/2682630/-/155cjanz/-/index.html

[Omollo]

These two baboons should be reminded that they do not hold Title over Kenya.

Deputy President William Ruto has given the United Nations three months to close the Dadaab refugee camps failing which Kenya will forcefully return them to Somalia.

http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/2682630/-/155cjanz/-/index.html

[Bella]

Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.

[Omollo]

The "order" is invalid. He should issue it writing and cite the specific law that grants him the power to take such an action. Roadside declarations are outlawed in the new katiba. Sadly Ruto opposed the katiba and definitely never read it.

Ruto is not the CS in charge of refugees (Internal Security) and he can only pretend to be President. In that case he needs to comply with this:

Decisions of the President.
135. A decision of the President in the performance of any function of the President under this Constitution shall be in writing and shall bear the seal and signature of the President.

Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.

[MOON Ki]

Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.

Bella:

What would you be missing?   Ruto, on the other hand, seems to be missing plenty of good common sense and basic legal understanding. 

* To start with, those refugees actually do have some sort of rights in the matter.   The Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

Article 14: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

* When applied to a group of people, the notion that refoulment is permissible in the interests of national security did not died ages ago.    If national security issues are involved, what seems to be the accepted standard is that there must be  individualized findings to that effect, and only the individuals involved should be dealt with.   So Ruto immediately has two problems:

- He needs to show that particular individuals in those camps threaten Kenya's national security.     (Going by standards in some legal cases in a few Western countries, the "internationally accepted bar" seems quite high: it would not be enough to merely show that those particular refugees are very bad guys.)

- He would then need to show how the particulars of those individuals extrapolate directly to the rest of the refugee population.  (That seems impossible, and it is where he loses before he even starts.)

* To the extent that Somali refugees "must" return to Somalia, there is an agreement---by the governments of Kenya (UhuRuto) and Somalia and the UNHCR---to help facilitate a voluntary return.   See here: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf

I don't know how much thinking-through has gone into this matter within GoK.   Probably not much.

* There are legal aspects that are worthy of the International Court of Justice and which could end up there.   

* Even the most callous folks in the world have something of a sympathetic attitude to those who, through no fault of their own, must seek refuge elsewhere.   I doubt that anyone has reflected on how damaging this could be to Kenya's reputation and interests.

* Many of Kenya's less-fortunate, and who are not refugees, get a lot of help from other places.    That will be noted by those who provide such help.

After the tough talk is done, I can't imagine how Ruto intends that this "they must leave right now!" will be done, although I won't say it is impossible.   But if I were to place a wager, it would be that ambassadors from certain countries will make certain things clear to Uhuru, and that will be the end of the idea.  Some saving of face will be required, and for that, some half-hearted thing will be rushed through that is covered my the current agreement.       

[Omollo]

MoonKi

In addition to the rights you cite, some of those so called "refugees" are bona fide citizens having been born in Kenya.

The second group has been living lawfully in Kenya for over 7 years and has a such acquired the right to be citizens of the country upon application. It is not a favor but a right that accrues to those persons by the authority of the Constitution.

Like I suggested earlier, there is no refugee problem as such. Over 75% of those residents of Dadaab have lawfully lived between 7 - 30 years and qualify for citizenship. All that is required is for Immigation officials to go over there, hand them their passports and arrange for their departure to any part of Kenya to settle permanently.

Those who do not wish to be citizens can still be granted work permits and allowed to find work somewhere in Kenya as any other aliens such as Biwott's wife.

By my calculation you would remain with a figure under 50K which can then be housed in the 47 counties on equitable basis. The funds used to keep them at Dadaab can follow them in the counties.

There is no need for soundbytes and roadside declarations. I have seen this matter handled professionally in multiple
countries.

The fastest method is to place them with host families and channel the assistance to both the refugee and the family. I am sure there are thousands of Kenyans that would volunteer to host refugees for a while until they can get on their own feet.

[MOON Ki]

Indeed, Omollo.   That's another big one that His Excellency, the D. P. has not probably not thought about.   Let's see how the UNHCR responds to this absurd ultimatum, but one thing is certain: they won't be trashing international law and  accepted norms merely because Ruto has demanded it.

[Bella]

Gentlemen, you are so right. Both in terms of International and Kenyan law. I have just perused Kenya's Refugee Act 2006 and it appears to be a domestication of those international principles MoonKi talked about:

1) Non-refoulement in section 18 titled: Non-return of refugees, their families or other persons.

2) Expulsion of INDIVIDUALS for purposes of national security and subject to due process of the law (and subject to section 18 that I've just cited) in section 21:

(1) Subject to 18(1) and subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister responsible for matters relating to immigration and internal security, order the expulsion from Kenya of any refugee or member of his familyif the Minister considers the expulsion to be necessary on the grounds of national security or public order.

(2) Before ordering the expulsion from Kenya of any refugeeor member of his family in terms of subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall act in accordance with the due process of law.

Clearly the law contemplates an individual process that is subject to the general legal standards of justice/fairness. Sections 4 & 5 though dealing with the refugee status itself and not expulsion, nonetheless should be relevant to a judge reviewing a matter of expulsion and asking whether the particular case qualifies:

And part of section 16:

entitled to the rights and be subject to the obligations contained in the international conventions to which Kenya is party;
(b) shall be subject to all laws in force in Kenya.

Gentlemen, we are dealing with yet another illegal venture by the Uhuru government. It wont go anywhere. Someone just needs to talk a walk to court. But one wonders, don't Uhuru & Ruto have advisors? What exactly is Githu's job?

@Moonki, what I was "missing" was the reasoning behind the idea that ridding ourselves of refugees as a whole will somehow take care of the Kenyan citizens who have been shooting us and throwing grenades at us all over the place.

[Bella]

I've just come across this article (http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/wiathi/kenyas-security-act-refugees/ ) on that ghastly "Security Act", parts of which the court threw out. Apparently, the Refugee Act is among the acts it had amended in that mad rush last year. This writer says that sections 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Act were amended. Particularly worrying is the cited 16D addition, which requires that Kenya shall not host more than 150,000 refugees at a time, subject to a 6-month adjustment of the limit by Parliament. I have a question: Were these among those parts of the security bill that were thrown out by the Judiciary?

[RV Pundit]

Yes there were part of those thrown out. Ruto first has to convince us that Daadab is the problem. The guys who attacked Garissa, WestGate and heck Mpeketoni were not refugees.

For me the somali (be they refugees or kenynas) are somalis and will continue to play host to terrorist knowingly or unkownignly.

Eve if you expel the 150-300K in Daadad..what will you do with 3M who are kenyans.

The solution has to start from responsibly withdrawing from Somali and bringing back the army to guard our borders. An impartial peacekeeping force that doesn't have Somalis should go in and do KDF job in Somalia.

I've just come across this article (http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/wiathi/kenyas-security-act-refugees/ ) on that ghastly "Security Act", parts of which the court threw out. Apparently, the Refugee Act is among the acts it had amended in that mad rush last year. This writer says that sections 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Act were amended. Particularly worrying is the cited 16D addition, which requires that Kenya shall not host more than 150,000 refugees at a time, subject to a 6-month adjustment of the limit by Parliament. I have a question: Were these among those parts of the security bill that were thrown out by the Judiciary?

[Omollo]

Bella and RV

I can confirm and add that the specific draconian provision was in fact among those initially suspended by the High court pending an inter-parties hearing and determination. It stood no chance whatsoever. The alarming thing is that somebody had the effrontery to bring it forth. This calls in to question the role of the Attorney General. Is he incompetent or simply sidelined? In which case the person serving should be removed or quit. There is no point having someone in office whose advice you neither seek nor listen to.

At the root of successive problems in Kenya over the decades is the failure / refusal by those holding office to understand the transitory nature of their positions. They fail to understand that decisions are made on behalf of the majority of the people of Kenya and shall largely respect or consider the feelings and values of the people of Kenya. This does not mean abandoning the leadership role and bowing to extremist views of certain groups - however strong their lobby.

I know there is anger especially among Evangelical Churches in Kenya directed at Muslims. I believe much of this originates from the financiers of most of the small movements who are based in the US. This has been a long lasting problem.

However this is how you must understand Ruto's utterances. I have been studying WSR and finally concluded that these extremists have some kind of control over his views. He has yet to fall out of step with the views of these evangelists. I am bereft of time these days or I would have dung up a clear pattern to the amazement of all. From my memory I am still able to make that case. Be it the constitution, abortion and now terrorism, he seems to adopt the same position.

On Somalis: Under Moi, Somalis began their long journey of rehabilitation and incorporation in the state of Kenya. There were hiccups. We had reached a point when Somalis had become a major contributor to the economic development of the Fatherland.

Why the over-reaction? Is this the first massacre in Kenya or NEP? I am not trying to be cynical but how does Uhuru think Somalis who lost 5000 people in a massacre feel about the exaggerated reaction over 148 ? Note that a life is a life so I am not denigrating any deaths as will no doubt be claimed. But what right to we have to treat one massacre with greater Vehemence (Kendi's Barometer still applies) than others? It is such acts that fuel the belief that Somalis or Muslims are less worth than Non Somali Kenyans / Christians.

Let WSR lead us in cutting down on sanctimoniousness so we can treat fellow citizens - The Kenyan Somali - fairly. This includes those born to refugees in Kenya as well as the naturalized former refugees.

Yes there were part of those thrown out. Ruto first has to convince us that Daadab is the problem. The guys who attacked Garissa, WestGate and heck Mpeketoni were not refugees.

For me the somali (be they refugees or kenynas) are somalis and will continue to play host to terrorist knowingly or unkownignly.

Eve if you expel the 150-300K in Daadad..what will you do with 3M who are kenyans.

The solution has to start from responsibly withdrawing from Somali and bringing back the army to guard our borders. An impartial peacekeeping force that doesn't have Somalis should go in and do KDF job in Somalia.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

MOON Ki and others,

The man might have a point.  The gist of the argument is summarized below.

As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border.  Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border. 

Despite that fact, they are not budging.  Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?

I understand they have rights to be wherever they are.  But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia.  As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.

[Omollo]

Mandera governor stated this months ago. He said that Al Shabaab was relocating. Instead of being listened to they dispatched EJK squads because he was ruining tourism

MOON Ki and others,

The man might have a point.  The gist of the argument is summarized below.

As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border.  Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border. 

Despite that fact, they are not budging.  Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?

I understand they have rights to be wherever they are.  But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia.  As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.

[MOON Ki]

MOON Ki and others,

The man might have a point.  The gist of the argument is summarized below.

As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border.  Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border. 

Despite that fact, they are not budging.  Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?

I understand they have rights to be wherever they are.  But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia.  As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.

That's a good one Terminator!      Things on the Kenyan side are certainly getting so bad that Somalia might be better ...  But let us focus on the bit in red.

There is an agreement in place between the government of Kenya, the government of Kenya, and the UNHCR.     That agreement says that:

1. The Parties hereby reaffirm that the repatriation provided for in this
Agreement of Somali refugees who have sought refuge in the Republic of
Kenya shall take place in conformity with international law pertaining to
voluntary repatriation.

2. The Parties hereby agree that the decision of the refugees to repatriate
shall be based on their freely expressed wish and their relevant knowledge
of the conditions within the country of origin and the areas of return.

http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf

It is not for Ruto, or anyone else, to suddenly wake up and decide that it is time for them to go home.

Even when the whole of Somalia becomes as safe as a Swiss hamlet, there is a long list of things that GoK must do before anyone packs up and goes home.

[MOON Ki]

The UNHCR responds:

UNHCR spokesman Emmanuel Nyabera told AFP in Nairobi: "We have not received any formal communication or formal request from the Kenyan government along this line."

 He added: "Kenya has an international obligation to protect the refugees and that includes no forceful repatriation to the country of origin."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kenya-asks-united-nations-to-repatriate-somali-refugees-after-garissa-massacre-754342

So it looks like the first thing Ruto has to do is specify which UNHCR he sent his order.   

Even if the UNHCR eventually receives the claimed order from Ruto, it is obviously not going to violate international norms.

[MOON Ki]

What exactly is Ruto up to?   Is it just to stir up animosity against or just pretend to be doing something refugees?

Things are very "interesting" if this is true:

UNHCR spokesman Emmanuel Nyabera told AFP in Nairobi: "We have not received any formal communication or formal request from the Kenyan government along this line."

 He added: "Kenya has an international obligation to protect the refugees and that includes no forceful repatriation to the country of origin."

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kenya-asks-united-nations-to-repatriate-somali-refugees-after-garissa-massacre-754342

So it looks like the first thing Ruto has to do is specify which UNHCR he sent his order.   

Even if the UNHCR eventually receives the claimed order from Ruto, it is obviously not going to violate international norms.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

MOON Ki and others,

The man might have a point.  The gist of the argument is summarized below.

As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border.  Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border. 

Despite that fact, they are not budging.  Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?

I understand they have rights to be wherever they are.  But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia.  As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.

That's a good one Terminator!      Things on the Kenyan side are certainly getting so bad that Somalia might be better ...  But let us focus on the bit in red.

There is an agreement in place between the government of Kenya, the government of Kenya, and the UNHCR.     That agreement says that:

1. The Parties hereby reaffirm that the repatriation provided for in this
Agreement of Somali refugees who have sought refuge in the Republic of
Kenya shall take place in conformity with international law pertaining to
voluntary repatriation.

2. The Parties hereby agree that the decision of the refugees to repatriate
shall be based on their freely expressed wish and their relevant knowledge
of the conditions within the country of origin and the areas of return.

http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf

It is not for Ruto, or anyone else, to suddenly wake up and decide that it is time for them to go home.

Even when the whole of Somalia becomes as safe as a Swiss hamlet, there is a long list of things that GoK must do before anyone packs up and goes home.

That's true.

I am just amazed.  That conditions that created these refugees have improved.  But they won't go back. 

Is this just a case of genuine refugees turning into economic refugees?  Why would someone insist on remaining in a refugee camp even when he is no longer a factual refugee?

I have met a full-blooded Zulu man who came to the states through one of those refugee camps.  Dadaab or Kakuma, I forget.  I am thinking that this fact hints at one reason.  They are legally, genuine refugees, but factually they are economic refugees.

Should UNHCR move them to Somalia, then they become IDPs without rights to be moved to third countries(usually somewhere in the developed west).

Should they voluntarily move back to Somalia, they also miss the opportunity to escape the economic conditions back in Somalia.  I am just guessing, having no first hand understanding of these things.  I could be way off.

There is also a real risk of these camps becoming havens of the more vicious types.  In Goma, UNHCR had a massive refugee camp that was controlled by interahamwe.  The Kagame assasins had to go in and force the refugees back home. 

I understand the need for respect for norms and such.  I get that.  But one wants to be open to exceptions where such norms not only create avenues for abuse, but can prevent rational actions.

[MOON Ki]

Terminator:

Convincing traumatised people that the place they fled is now a much better place is never easy (and I don't know if those refugees actually know that much of the situation in Somalia).    That is why the agreement above contains bits such as

v. Facilitate "go and see" visits of refugees to areas of intended return, and
"come and tell" ...

As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't.    Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation.  (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.)   I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return.   Not even when they start off on "temporary visas".  Not even when the place they fled becomes safe.   Why would they? 

Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia.  I don't know.   But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator:

Convincing traumatised people that the place they fled is now a much better place is never easy (and I don't know if those refugees actually know that much of the situation in Somalia).    That is why the agreement above contains bits such as

v. Facilitate "go and see" visits of refugees to areas of intended return, and
"come and tell" ...

As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't.    Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation.  (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.)   I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return.   Not even when they start off on "temporary visas".  Not even when the place they fled becomes safe.   Why would they? 

Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia.  I don't know.   But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.

There is a problem with loopholes that permit non-genuine refugees in my opinion.  Isn't that the whole point for criteria to determine who is deserving to be a refugee in the first place? I think that can open a can of worms.  The kind that can justify ideas like the ones suggested by the hustler. 

Given the history of UNHCR camps in Africa since Rwanda, the idea that some savages can  take refuge in those camps cannot seem far fetched.  That said, I agree, that there is an established way to go about it.  If that does not work, only then should another way be suggested.

So the problem is really deeper than just UNHCR corruption and economic refugees.

I also feel that if a country can accept a refugee on the basis of conditions in the home country, then it should have the same discretion to take away that refuge when it is no longer justified.  The UNHCR can still help them deal with demons and PTSD in their home country. 

[MOON Ki]

There is a problem with loopholes that permit non-genuine refugees in my opinion.  Isn't that the whole point for criteria to determine who is deserving to be a refugee in the first place?

I agree with that, and most countries try to be careful about who is or is not admitted as a refugee.    But once people have been admitted as refugees---and that's the Dabaab type of folks---then they are in a very different category. And the fact that they might try to "economically leverage" their position is a different matter.

Given the history of UNHCR camps in Africa since Rwanda, the idea that some savages can  take refuge in those camps cannot seem far fetched. 

I agree with that.  From the sheer size of some of the camps in Kenya, we know, from normal distributions of humans, that there will be some bad people doing bad things in those places.   But that is insufficient to justify the type of blanket-order Ruto just issued.   

I spent about an hour this morning trying to find verifiable information on any serious crimes that have been committed by people in those camps---legal proceedings and convictions etc. There is little to be found.    This idea that the camps pose a serious threat to the welfare of Kenyans seems to be bandied about, but without any substantive evidence.    In terms of looking like GoK is serious about the problem, or just working up the native population, Ruto's is an "excellent" idea.    In the other world of "what exactly have these people done?", things are very different.

I also feel that if a country can accept a refugee on the basis of conditions in the home country, then it should have the same discretion to take away that refuge when it is no longer justified.   

That notion did exist at one time.   Two World Wars, and the Europeans had a serious re-think.    It is now largely, and partly on the basis of rather painful lessons, regarded as unacceptable.   A great deal of international laws and norms in such matters come from that early post-war periods over there, as well as the acceptance of certain standards on "human rights".  Not surprisingly, there is nowhere where  it is more difficult to kick out refugees than Europe.  And in places like Kenya there should not be any need to repeat lessons that have already been learned and codified into international law.

But away from generalities:

* What exactly have the folks in those camps done?

* Much has been made of the fact that one of the terrorists was a Kenyan, educated at Kenya's finest university, son of a government official.  One, but 20%,  of the attackers.  Where do the people in Dabaab come in?  Were they the other four (80%), or is Dabaab just the most convenient place for anyone looking for "undesirable Somalis"?

* Right after the Westgate attacks, Ruto came up with the idea of sending home all those Somalis in refugee camps.  GoK was unable to come up with anything concrete to help Ruto's "case", and after some running around, everyone agreed on the agreement I have "linked" above.   That there has recently been a particularly nasty attack does got give Ruto any better grounds from which to vilify all Somali refugees.