There has been concern from many grassroots groups about the oversight and governance of community-based organizations. The plight has since been crystalized by the enactment of the Community Based Registration Act No. 30 of 2022.
The legislation introduces regulations pertaining to community-based organisations’ registration, administration and financial provisions.
Most CBOs are established within the community and are at the forefront in responding to societal needs. Before the Community Groups Registration Act, many community organisations were registered with few procedural requirements, allowing room for their effectiveness and the adoption of simple organisational models and structures.
On 15th August 2023, Mathare Social Justice Centre received a letter from the Mathare Sub-CountySocial Development Officer (SCSD/MAT/SHG/8/2023(007). The letter in part reads: “it has been noted by the Sub-County Social Development officer that your activities are more nurturing and protecting the fundamental Human Rights of the individuals, and families of the Mathare Community which is not in line with our community registration activities as per our new Community Groups Registration Act, No. 30 of 2022. We therefore as an office request your organisation to amend its group objectives so that they can be in line with our Act…”
On 19th September, a month after we received this letter, MSJC organized a grassroots workshop to address the Act’s attempts to undermine the Constitution and grassroots democracy, by interfering with the autonomy of community-based organizations.
The workshop was attended by 20 participants and contributors, including Prof Kivutha Kibwana, a constitutional lawyer and former Governor of Makueni County, and Charles Maina formerly of the International Justice Mission (IJM). They, notably, advised us on the constitutional and legislative framework that governs the new Act.
Other participants were the District County Commissioner and Sub-County Social Development Office represented by Chief Mugo, Mabatini Ward, the membership of the Social Justice Centers – Nairobi Chapter (which included Mathare Social Justice Centre, Kayole Social Justice Center, Githurai Social Justice Center, The Social Justice Travelling Theater, Mathare Social Justice Centers Network, Kiamaiko Social Justice Centre, Ghetto Foundation and Ruaraka Social Justice Centre), Missing Voices and other legal advisers.
The participants went through the history of social justice centers and their formation process, looking into case studies from Mathare Social Justice Centre and Kayole Community Justice Center.
Mathare Social Justice Centre was registered in 2015 as a space to document human rights violations that were rampant around Mathare during that period. The Mathare Social Justice Centre was started in 2014, three years after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
It was noted that during the process of registration, the Office of Social Development had disapproved the registration of the name “Mathare Social Justice Centre,” on account of the “social justice” character of the organisation, even while MSJC had paid registration fee. This was contrary to Article 10 (2) (b) of the Constitution which provides that; “The national values and principles of governance include: – human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalized.”
Kayole Community Justice Center noted that they had great challenges with registration. They share that the Social Development Officer in Kayole denied them registration, and were only registered after Noordin Haji, the then Director of Criminal Investigations intervened after attending the launch of the centre. The organisation does not appear in the register of community based organisations despite them having a valid certificate of operation.
Participants reflected on the deregistration of Clarion, an NGO, which operated in the ‘90s on account of its human rights activities and protection of democratic spaces in Kenya.
The Social Justice Movement was reflected on as a mass-based social movement whose duty is to safeguard grassroots democracy and protect the values and spirit of the Constitution. It was noted that the passing of the Act without public participation, and the letter sent to Mathare Social Justice Centre, was a direct attack on grassroots democracy and exposed the deliberate shrinking of civic spaces in our country.
Participants highlighted other legislations such as the Public Order Act and the NGO Act of 1990 that continue to muzzle the spirit and space of human rights and democracy in Kenya.
The discussions were then organised into different groups to allow the participants to interact with the contents of the Act intensively. This involved a thorough perusal of the Act; identifying constitutional contraventions and opportunities.
It was noted that there are now 21 registered social justice centres in Nairobi, and that people face numerous frustrations at the Social Development Office when seeking registration; there are also other Social Justice Centres which are pending registration, some of which the Social Development Office has denied registration. These are, for example, Mau Mau Haki Centre and the Social Justice Centers Travelling Theatre.
Deliberation points to note:
- Participants noted that before the legislation came into effect, there was no regulatory framework under which community-based organisations were registered. The new law is found to be restrictive as far as it limits fundamental human rights including the right of association. The justice centres have operated since 2015, and there has never been a complaint that their actions were in contravention of the Constitution or any law.
- The Act contravened Article 1 of the constitution which provides: “all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in accordance with this constitution.”Grassroots organisations form the collective voice at the grassroots, and denying people the right to organise at a grassroots level is infringing on the sovereignty of the people of Kenya. The Act fails to acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution by contradicting its values.
- The Act contravenes Article 10 (2) (a) of the Constitution, which states that “The national values and principles of governance include: – patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people.”
- The Act contravenes the values of democracy and grassroots organisation; community was not involved in any deliberation of it.
- Further, Article 186 (2) of the Constitution, read along with the fourth Schedule – Part 2(14), clearly provides for the functions and powers of national and county government. Part 2 (14) of the fourth schedule reads; “the functions and powers of the County are; ensuring and coordinating the participation of the communities and locations in governance at the local level and assisting communities and locations to develop the administrative capacity for the effective exercise of the functions and powers and participation in governance at the local level.”
- Participants noted that all community activities cannot be divorced from the aspiration to promote social justice and the realization of the potential of all human beings. The essence of registering a community-based organization is that the community is aware of its priority issues and can develop its solutions through programs that intimately involve the whole community. Through community-based organizations, the community can participate in governance at the local level.
Violation of Article 19 of the Constitution
- Participants did an analysis of Article 19 which provides that the Rights and fundamental freedoms provided for under the Bill of Rights are inherent and inalienable rights and freedoms.
- Article 19 (2) provides: “The Bill of Rights is an integral part of Kenya’s democratic state and is the framework for social, economic and cultural policies.” It further provides that “the purpose of recognizing and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms is to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities and to promote social justice and the realization of the potential of all human beings.”
- It was noted that the activities of a CBO cannot merely be limited to economic rights (empowerment) devoid of social, political and cultural rights. Participants noted that civil and political rights are indivisible. Article 43 of the Constitution provides for social and economic rights, which are reinforced by Article 38 that provides for political rights and Article 36 which provides for the freedom of association.
- That the Director of Social Development has the sole authority to decide who forms a special interest group was also identified as alarming.
- There was emphasis on Article 24 which provides: “a right or fundamental freedom shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors including the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.”
Violation of Article 36 of the Constitution
- Violation of Article 36 of the Constitution provides for the right of every person to associate, and which includes the right to join and or participate in the activities of an association of any kind. Such an association must be a voluntary association. Members noted that the social justice centres accept membership of voluntary individuals who live, work and interact with the realities of their communities. As such, Mathare Social Justice Centre, and all social justice organisations, are constitutionally permitted to exist as community based organisations based on the fact that they involve members of the community and exercise their mandate within the Mathare community in accordance with the laws and policies of the Republic of Kenya.
Ambiguity of the Act
- It was noted that the Act was ambiguous in so far as it did not specify the ministry responsible for enforcing and overseeing the implementation of the Act.
- The Act provides for the Office of the Director, which shall be an office in the public service. It also provides for the Social Development Office, which is an office under the ministry responsible for social development, which is the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection.
- The Act does not provide for a transition clause to guide the CBOs that were registered before the Act. There was a lack of a coherent policy guiding the registration of community based organisation then, which would interfere with the process of interpretation of and reference to the new law.
- Participants noted that most community-based organisations, whose objective is human rights oriented, have experienced similar procedural challenges in recent times with the concerned registration institutions
- Participants challenged the monarchical status of the Director of Social Development as provided for by Section 3 of the Act.
- The financial provisions as stated in the Act are unclear and restrictive of community organizing.
- The definition of civil society organisations deliberately limits how a CBO can interact and relate with other organisations.
Overall, participants agreed that the legislation has made the mistake of over-regulation, which limits the rights and freedom of individuals and communities. They agreed that CBO’s should have a policy of self-regulation in order for all Kenyans to participate in governance at the local and community level. After all, these organisations exist to do what the government has failed to do at the grassroots.
In the definition of a community group, one participant posed a question: when the Constitution provides for social and political rights and sovereign people organise and debate around those issues, are they political?
Therefore, the activities proposed by the CBO registration forms have not been constitutionally developed. This then requires a review process on the development and implementation of the policy itself.
What is to be done?
The Community Registration Act cannot exist without scrutiny; there should be discussion of the issues raised above about its legality and constitutionalism.
Participants resolved that, to address these key issues, the strategy and tactics required would be both short and long-term and would be applied in a two-line strategy: the legal strategy and the creation of an alternative leadership mechanism. The workshop then formed two committees to oversee the process. The committees are: 1) the legal committee and 2) committee against the shrinking of civic and democratic spaces.
Short Term Response
- A response letter from the Mathare Social Justice Centre (MSJC) was to be sent to the Sub County Office of Social Development.
- Committees were to map out other community based organisations whose registration was pending and those denied registration on account of human rights objectives.
- There was a need to have a collective response to the Sub-County Social Development Office to understand which objectives and activities of Mathare Social Justice Centre (MSJC) are not in accordance with the Act, and which specific sections of the Act that are contravened by our activities.
- The Social Justice Centre Working Group was to convene meetings at the community level to created awareness about the Community Groups Registration Act.
Long Term Response
- File a constitutional petition challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Act and its provisions.
- Map strategic collaborations and partnerships, and hold frequent discussions on policies that affect organisations in the community.
Report prepared by Waringa Wahome, coordinator of the MSJC Legal Empowerment Network