http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/307/41847_mob.jpgEverlyne Nairesiae of GROOTS Kenya reviews the recent three-day workshop of pan-African mobile phone activists, held in Nairobi. She explains how GROOTS has applied mobile phone technology in their work on property rights for rural Kenyan women.

Mobile activists across Africa converged in Nairobi Kenya for a three-day workshop facilitated by Fahamu in conjunction with the (known as 'Tactical Tech'). The aim of the workshops was to critically examine existing opportunities to enhance the wide use of mobile phone as media of advocacy, networking and collaboration among activists in Africa.

The workshop was a build up to the 'techie' preparation for a two-day workshop geared towards developing a toolkit especially tailored to suit the African context. The launch of the toolkit, which is anticipated to be ready by October 2007, aims to strengthen and facilitate the use of mobile phones as a tool for advocacy in responding to social development needs in Africa. The workshop culminated in the formation of a steering committee mandated by members to champion the development of the Pan-African Mobile Network (PAMONET).

My participation in the workshop was exiting, since it was characterised by the rich experiences of presenters from Africa and around the word on the application of mobile phones in advocacy work. The use of mobile phone technology stands out as a unique and emerging convenient mode of communication for community development across Africa. African countries including Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and Kenya among others have recently started using this technology to resolve community needs, and advocate for human rights, among other cross-cutting issues. This is done mainly through use of short messages (SMS), and/or making direct calls via cell phone. During the workshop, activists reported concrete achievements registered with the use of mobile phone across countries in Africa and that their contribution in addressing social and development issues cannot be under estimated.

GROOTS Kenya regional electronic exchange mentorship strategy to address women and orphans property inheritance rights

GROOTS - is a grassroots organisation operating together in sisterhood is a movement of community based organisations and groups of women in Kenya. GROOTS Kenya is a member of GROOTS International and Huairou Commission. Their work is centred around the lives and needs of grassroots women. It is therefore largely non-thematic as it responds to community needs and priorities. The organisation accomplishes its goals through four main programmes: Community Responses to HIV/Aids, Women and Property Program, Women's Leadership and Governance, and Community Resources and Livelihoods.

GROOTS Kenya has mainly used the mobile phone in advocating and addressing women and orphans rights to own and inherit property in four regions in Kenya which include: Kakamega in western province, Kendubay in Nyanza province, and Limuru and Gatundu in Central province of Kenya. In these communities, GROOTS Kenya facilitated the formation of community watchdog groups, which are led by women to safeguard against the grabbing of property from women and orphans, many of who are infected and affected with HIV/Aids.

The watchdog groups work with relevant NGOs, government institutions, opinion/traditional leaders, FBOs as well as the provincial administrators through the office of the chief and assistant chiefs. It is important to mention that chiefs and assistant chiefs are the lowest government administration unit at the community level and are very crucial in determining and safeguarding the rights of marginalized people in any community in Kenya. Unfortunately most of them have limited knowledge, information and capacity to handle and or support property disinheritance cases of women or orphans brought to their attention.

In the four regions only one assistant chief Mr Peter Mutheru; who is sub-chief in Kiamoria sub-location in Gatundu, had ample knowledge and skills. This necessitated a lot of interaction among the chiefs from the four regions to benefit from his significant understanding of the procedures of courts of law in order to support cases of women and orphans right to property inheritance which were being presented to them by the watchdog groups.

The use of mobile phone became a special tool in facilitating electronic mentoring among the chiefs across the region mainly through communicating via messages and making direct call to each other while seeking guidance and or information on succession law and procedures. In addition, this was complemented by the use of community radio listening strategies which created awareness on the right to property of women and orphans. On the other hand, grassroots women and members of watchdog groups also use mobile phone to report cases of property grabbing to the chiefs, and thereby enhance the communication and follow up of cases as well as provide support to victims of the vice.

Increase in knowledge among the chiefs led to the transformation of both their attitude towards women and orphans property rights and influenced their mode of working which in turn facilitated efficiency at administrative and community levels. The use of regional electronic exchange mentoring strategy by GROOTS Kenya, using the mobile phones have led to the following achievements:

* enhanced knowledge and skills in addressing women and orphans property rights among the chiefs across the four regions through mentoring and networking
* increase in resolved cases of women and orphans who had lost property to relatives
* strengthened the relationship between the provincial administrators and grassroots women in the community through partnership
* enhanced follow up and support of pending cases in the office of the chief and law courts
* facilitated a significant reduction in costs for instance on travelling, accommodation and other logistics since the regions were distance away from each other.

Although the above achievements were realised, the following challenges including high poverty levels which hinders communities and chiefs to purchase airtime; illiteracy mainly among grassroots women hence unable to read messages; a limited number of cell phones in the communities thus rely on those who have cell phones to access information; and a lack of formality in communication which makes it difficult to hold any party accountable.

Most groups tried to have parallel meetings in their own different regions and converse in a form of tele-conferencing through mobiles. Unfortunately the telephone sets used by many communities have no features such as speaker phones which would have enabled more than one person to listen to a call and then pass the information on to the rest of the community.

GROOTS Kenya’s experience coupled up with experiences from other countries in Africa shared during the mobile activism workshop in Nairobi Kenya highlighted a number of factors. It is evident that the use of cell phones facilitate achievement of tremendous results which are cost effective and efficient.

Thanks to Fahamu and Tactical Tech for providing us an opportunity to share and learn from other partners experiences on the use of cell phones in addressing social and development needs. For more information please contact GROOTS Kenya on the address given below.

* Everlyne Nairesiae is Program Coordinator of GROOTS Kenya P.O.Box, 10320-GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E.mail:[email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The right to information underpins and is the cornerstone of all other human rights. Priscilla Nyokabi assesses the newly proposed Freedom of Information Act of Kenya.

The Kenyan section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Freedom of Information Network celebrates the dawn of an era in Kenya marked by the introduction of the Freedom of Information Bill, 2007 in parliament yesterday, 17 May 2007, by Hon. Gideon Moi on behalf of Hon. Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o.

The painstaking efforts of the Freedom of Information Network of drafting and publicising the Freedom of Information Bill have finally come to fruition through the tabling of the bill. This has been an ongoing campaign since the year 2000 spearheaded by ICJ-Kenya in consultation with various stakeholders, members of the Freedom of Information Network, and supported by many Kenyans countrywide. The 9th parliament has brought us to the peak of the Right to Know Campaign by embarking on the legislative process.

We are happy to note that even the government is keenly committed to this cause, as evidenced by the publication of the recent Draft Kenya Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill 2007. Indeed all stakeholders are reading from the same script, the government, the media, the civil society, MPs and all Kenyans of good will. We therefore envisage a smooth passage of the bill long before elections.

The published bill has very progressive provisions. It promises to usher in an era of openness, transparency and accountability in Kenya. Enactment of the FOI Act will confirm Kenya as a leading democracy in Africa, and among the top five countries to have an FOI Law. Only South Africa, Angola and Uganda have access to information regimes.

We are now at the finishing line towards having an FOI Act in Kenya. The clock is ticking and we urge all members of the 9th parliament both in opposition and in government to rise to the occasion and put the interests of this great nation forward by enacting the bill in its entirety.

Why an FOI law?

There are many reasons for having freedom of information legislation: to make government more accountable, increase public participation, promote the involvement of all in public life, including those currently marginalised, like women; to make private companies more accountable, monitor and expose corruption, lead to better decision making, protect privacy, expose human rights violations, and promote workers' rights; and to make the country more secure. Access to information is instrumental to parliament's oversight role.

Access to information makes the government more sensitive and responsive to the needs and demands of the ordinary people. A freedom of information law increases public participation, because the public can regularly engage with government officials and parliamentary representatives.

Freedom of information entails the rights of citizens of a country to access official information held or in the custody of their government. It invokes an obligation on the government to facilitate easy access to information under its docket, and, significantly, to publish important information pro-actively and regularly for the general public.

Good governance, an essential component of any thriving democratic state, is premised on a system of openness, trust and government accountability. This can only be achieved if the public is involved in the process of governance. If the general public knows the functions, policies and decisions made, they can question the government on the basis of the information obtained, and, most importantly, the reasons for the government’s actions. It is thus necessary that the government develops a clear policy on the freedom of information in a bid to ensuring that subsequent legislation – freedom of information laws - are implemented effectively and based on accepted international principles and best practices.

The right to information underpins all other human rights; it is the cornerstone of all other rights. The right is encapsulated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) under Article 19. It is similarly enshrined in the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Kenya is a party.

Though the Kenyan constitution does not expressly provide for the freedom of information, section 79 of the constitution makes provision for the freedom of expression which includes among other things: ‘freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of person)’.

The right to information is enshrined in the section 79 of the constitution, which provides for freedom of expression. The right is however derogated from through various pieces of legislation, chief among them is the Official Secrets Act. This position was sought to be corrected in the draft constitution, article 51 of which expressly provides for the right of access to information, and requires an enabling law be enacted within six months of the coming into force of the new constitution.

As can be reasonably inferred from the constitution, the right to receive ideas and information without interference affords the citizens of Kenya a right to access information, including government information. Similarly Kenya has ratified and adopted the UDHR and the ICCPR; and the government is under an obligation to promote and preserve the right to information. One end of achieving such means is by putting in place the necessary policies to promote the right and the enactment of a freedom of information law to guarantee the said right to the citizenry.

The implementation and operationalisation of both a policy and freedom of information law will be the essential building blocks towards creating an open, free and accountable culture in Kenya and the foundation of a successful democratic state.

International principles and best practices

For the proposed freedom of information policy 2007 to be effective in implementing a FOI regime, they must be premised on international principles and best practices, which have been developed over the years by countries that have adopted FOI laws, borne out of their experiences in respect to operationalising the enjoyment of the right to know. As we are getting into FOI jurisprudence after many other countries, let us learn from them and adopt best practices.

In borrowing international practice for the FOI regime, let us borrow from the most progressive jurisdictions in application of the FOI Law. Australia and United Kingdom are known to be conservative regimes. South Africa and India provide more progressive models. Let us at look at drawing lessons from closer home in South Africa.

There are the minimum standards that any proposed FOI law should adopt in order for a state to fulfil its obligations of promoting and preserving the right to information. These principles are set out below.

Maximum disclosure

This principle provides for a strong presumption in favour of disclosure of information. Simply put, it advocates for the disclosure of all government or public information. It covers the access of information in all public bodies and private bodies that carry out public functions or where their activities affect the public rights or civil liberties.

Under this principle disclosure and access to information is the norm; the exception being non-disclosure. In addition this principle imposes an obligation on the state to pro-actively and regularly publish information in its possession without any prompting from the public. It establishes minimum standards under which public records are to stored and maintained by public bodies. It provides for offences for the obstruction of access of information or the wilful destruction of records.

Minimum exemptions

Closely linked to the principle of maximum disclosure, this principle advocates for limited exceptions of information that should not be disclosed. It provides that exceptions should be precise and narrowly drafted to protect a legitimate interest from harm, often referred to as the ‘harm’ and ‘public’ test. Exceptions should be based on the content rather than on a particular class such as ‘national security’. In short, no blanket exemptions are allowed. A refusal to disclose information must be justified by a public body and should meet a strict three-part test, including:

* information must relate to a legitimate interest/aim listed in the law
* disclosure must threaten to cause substantial harm to that aim
* the harm to that interest must be greater than the public interest in having the information disclosed.

It should be noted that even though the information in question meets the above mentioned three-part test, it might still be disclosed if it is shown that the public interest in disclosing that information is greater than the harm that may befall the protected interest. This is what is referred to as the public override test.

Simple, easy and inexpensive access

Any freedom of information law should provide for a mechanism for simple and cheap access to information. The process of deciding upon requests for information should be defined at three main stages: within the relevant public body; appeals to an independent administrative body; and an appeal method to the courts. Where applicable, the provision should ensure full access to certain disadvantaged groups such as the disabled. The cost of obtaining information should not be dear as to prevent the realisation of the objectives of the law.

Promotion of open government

This principle mainly advocates the promotion of the right to information by the government, and creating a culture of openness within government circles. This entails the provision of public education, dissemination of information relating to FOI to the general public, informing the public about the scope of the information that is covered by the law, information available and the manner in which the public may exercise their rights.

In addition, this principle places an obligation on the government to provide training to their officers on the freedom of information, the scope of the right, procedures for allowing access of information to the public, maintenance and preservation of public documents, information that should be pro-actively disclosed and the scope of whistleblower protection.

Disclosure takes precedence

This international principle simply provides that existing laws, which are in contrast with the principle of maximum disclosure, should be amended or repealed. That other laws relating to the maintenance, publication or dissemination of public information should be construed in a manner consistent with the FOI law. Where inapplicable, such information should be dealt with subject to the principles espoused by the freedom of information legislation.

Whistleblower protection

An effective freedom of information law should make provision for the protection of whistleblowers. Whistle blowers as the name suggest refers to government employees or third parties privy to government functions who disclose information of wrong doing by government officials, information which is the subject of exemption. This people perform the function of early warning and complement investigators roles. Such people should be properly protected from reprisals from government officials or penalisation, as a result of their actions, so long as they act reasonably and in good faith.

Conclusion

The FOI Bill 2007, when enacted into law, promises to usher Kenya into an era of openness, transparency and accountability. Access to information is the key pillar of democracy. It will facilitate public participation in public affairs, as noted by President Mwai Kibaki in 2005:

‘…more importantly, the free flow of news and information is one of the hall marks of a functioning democracy. An informed society is able to better participate in design and execution of public policies. It is also more resourceful and creative in addressing social challenges. Such a society is therefore, better placed to increase productivity and prosperity...my Government is, together with media and other stakeholders, drafting a Freedom of Information Act, to bring the legal framework in line with current realities. These and other initiatives are meant to enhance the ability of the people of Kenya to exchange ideas, question the Government, contribute to national development and be part of a truly democratic state.’

The above is a reflection of the promises we are asking all our leaders to keep in bringing Kenya in line with the current realities. Kenya should join the other 70 countries in the world that have enacted freedom of information laws.

* Priscilla Nyokabi is programme officer for the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists

* This is an edited version of a longer paper which is available at the Pambazuka News website (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/41846)

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Two years on, the winners of the 2005 Ethiopian elections remain in prison. Mammo Muchie challenges the international community to stop using double standards, and demands that it privileges and prioritises values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law over narrow national interests.

'All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field.' - Albert Einstein

It is exactly two years since Ethiopia experienced one of the most open elections in its history. All of us who expected that finally our country would make it by seeing lawful, legitimate, citizen-anchored, citizen-choosing and citizen-voting change from one set of parties and persons to another, found ourselves in the unhappy situation where the usual mindset of those in power refused to concede to the citizenry.

Today, those who were elected are still in prison. Far from democracy fully blossoming in the veins, arteries and soul of this ancient nation, democracy itself is in prison. How else can we describe the difficulties of those who have done nothing but run for election in the drive to express their highest form of citizenship, other than to say we are bewildered. Continuing to imprison them is to continue to imprison democracy itself.

The space once open in Ethiopia in the pre-election phase undoubtedly created opportunities for some 25,000,000 Ethiopians to manifest a will to self-govern. One can understand that the fight, the debate, the commotion and excitement was unusually electrifying and vibrant. There is no doubt, also, that given the context of a free election, any reaction could spill into overreaction.

But nothing can justify the regime’s action to convert a vibrant political process, where the stakes were so high, into the overreaction and subsequent, if not wilful, killings by the security services into a legal wrangle against the popularly elected citizens, such as the engineer Hailu Shawl, Weizero Birtukan, Dr Berhanu, and all the others who are still unjustly in jail.

Changing the political process into a criminal legal process is hypocritical and unfair. The regime cannot prove that those in jail have any criminal intention. They never had. They never will. They had the noble intention of seeing their nation achieve what it has never achieved in its long history: to enter into an era of rule of law, where those in power submit to law, respect democratic freedoms, human rights and democratic political systems of governance.

Victims of double standards

A year ago in May 2006, there was a self-initiated momentum of world wide protest. Unity of the opposition, despite many attempts to disrupt it, was at the highest it had perhaps ever been. After May 2006, opposition groups started disagreeing, and the momentum slowed.

Now there is a need for the opposition to unite and agree in ensuring that those in jail are released long before the Ethiopian millennium. It will be a shame on all of us, above all on the Meles regime, to enter the next 1000 years with democrats in jail.

There are those who say that calling for the prisoners to be released is not the same thing as calling for the release of democracy - symbolically jailed along with their imprisonment. But there is no doubt it is the same thing. If there is anything that opposition forces unite on, it must be on the release of the prisoners, in order to release the incarcerated democracy of our country. It will be shameful for all of us not to recognise this dialectic, and call for the unconditional earliest possible release of those citizens, freely voted and chosen by Ethiopians who manifested a will to govern themselves through legitimate representatives.

It is also shameful for the drivers of world politics, who claim to stand for the values of freedom, human rights, the rule of law and democracy, to fete those who continue to jail a group of people whose record speaks a million for standing for the same values. Prof. Mesfin has stood for educating citizens, through ERCHO and other press outlets, for a very long time. There is absolutely no justification to put a man of his distinction in jail. For the world to remain silent and look the other way when such injustice is visited on an elderly man is indeed a failure of will, and a triumph of narrow interest.

Ever since the US policy thinkers have used the cold war paradigm to frame that country’s national security strategy by differentiating enemies and friends with the language of 'those who are not with us are against us', it has been possible for opportunist politicians to lure the US into serving its current strategic concerns.

On 20 September 2001, President Bush addressed the joint session of congress and the American people outlining the defining doctrine of the post-9/11 world: 'Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, you are with the terrorists' (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html). The problem with this formulation is that whoever claims to fight terrorism, whether that regime upholds democracy, human rights and rule of law or not, is open to be feted by the Bush administration. The doctrine, just as in the cold war days, opens up the opportunity for those who run into domestic trouble to entice the US government to back their misdeeds and look the other way.

The US government also opens itself to the legitimate charge that it is following a double standard. One of its standards is to uphold values of freedom and democracy; and the other standards are to pursue its interests. For the US government, especially the Bush administration, fusing the two and finding sustainable allies based on principles and values, have since become a huge problem. Ethiopia’s search for a democratic history has been influenced by the American administration's contradictory posture, inherent in the tension of the current post-9/11 doctrines. Our own election has suffered and our prisoners are still in jail for two main reasons: internal opposition division and not being able to unite around a minimum programme; and the international community' double standard.

A renewed call

Always in the middle of crisis lies opportunity. We call for the opposition to unite and redouble its efforts to get the prisoners released without delay.

Ethiopia has in front of it a millennium coming. It will be a shame to enter the millennium divided: the church is divided; the political parties are divided; communities are ethnically divided. There is alarming talk of a growing religious divide. Ethiopia may not avoid these divisive fissures, but it can not afford them. It is a challenge to all of us in Ethiopia and the region, from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, to make sure that we promote rule of law, democracy and human rights; and institutionalise democratic governance as a sure remedy to deal with the myriad conflicts and create a community of security and development, not only in Ethiopia but in the entire Horn of Africa region.

We call on the international community to stop using double standards, and demand that it privileges and prioritises values of democracy, human rights and rule of law over narrow national interests and narrow global projections, and to distinguish enemies from friends. We call on it to use every possible influence and the Ethiopian millennium to get the imprisoned democrats released and demand that they express outrage against the criminalisation of those who have been duly and freely elected as part of consistently upholding of the values they claim to hold dear.

If the unity of Ethiopians for democracy, human rights and rule of law, and the international community's respect of these same values over any narrow national and foreign policy concerns and interests, evade us, then Einstein is right: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.'

The Network of Ethiopian Scholars (NES) challenges us all to show the limitless capacity for human stupidity is not infinite. Act and unite to release the prisoners now!

* Mammo Muchie is a member of the Scandinavian chapter of the Network of Ethiopian Scholars.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org