As the country continues to grapple with issues of
diversity, identity, and national unity, the NCIC’s mandate and its real impact
have remained a source of public debate and scrutiny.
The NCIC was established in 2008 under the National Cohesion
and Integration Act following the devastating 2007-2008 post-election violence
that rocked the country and left over 1,100 people dead, displacing more than 600,000
others.
The violence exposed deep-seated ethnic divisions and
prompted urgent conversations on how to heal the nation’s wounds and prevent
future atrocities.
The commission was set up to “promote national identity and
values, mitigate ethno-political competition and ethnically motivated violence,
eliminate discrimination on ethnic, racial, and religious basis, and promote
national reconciliation and healing” for a fractured Kenya.
At the core of its mandate, the NCIC is empowered to
facilitate and promote equality of opportunity, foster good relations among
various ethnic and racial communities, and advise the government on policies to
mitigate conflict.
Beyond advocacy, the commission is also expected to monitor
hate speech, conduct civic education, and initiate or recommend legal action
against individuals or groups propagating hate or division.
However, there are clear boundaries to what the commission
can accomplish. While it can summon individuals for questioning, issue
directives, coordinate peace accords, and push for prosecution of hate speech
cases, it is not—in itself—a prosecutorial body.
It depends heavily on partnerships with other state agencies, such as the Judiciary and the National Police Service, to hold offenders accountable for their actions.
This means its ability to ensure the punishment of those
responsible for spreading hate is limited and indirect.
Many have pointed out that although the commission can summon
the people it is investigating, the matter ends there.
NCIC chair Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia has repeatedly assured that
the commission is committed to fulfilling its mission of fostering national unity,
combating hate speech, and promoting peace in the country.
“We will fulfil our mandate without fear or favour, and we
will call out political players who use their platform to incite us to
violence. Dear Kenyans, you have my pledge,” Kobia said in a recent press
briefing.
Political interference and ethnic partisanship have often
been seen to undermine the NCIC’s authority.
Elected officials—in some instances, the very people inciting
tension—have questioned the legitimacy and effectiveness of the NCIC, even
threatening to dissolve and defund it for failing to address the spread of hate
speech decisively.
But Kobia has charged back, stating: “As a commission, we
will be the custodian of national values and ethos as spelt out in Article 10
of the Kenya Constitution 2010.”
Limited funding has also been seen to restrict the
commission’s capacity to conduct investigations, roll out sensitisation
campaigns, and monitor digital hate speech and social media trends.
A significant funding gap remains, affecting its capacity to
deploy staff, train monitors, and secure the necessary technology for tracking
hate speech, especially on digital platforms.
Further, there are overlaps in roles among commissions,
independent offices, and departments, also handling cohesion, which dilutes the
NCIC’s influence and often leads to duplication or inactivity.
Public apathy and reluctance to provide evidence or turn up
as witnesses in hate speech cases further weaken the power of the commission.
According to past reflections by public figures, for the
NCIC to truly make a difference, Kenyans themselves must accept some
responsibility and actively support legal efforts to hold provocateurs
accountable.
Over the years, the NCIC has summoned several
high-profile politicians and public figures for alleged incitement or hate
speech.
Critics, however, argue that NCIC targets opposition figures
while overlooking inflammatory remarks from ruling-party allies.
Kobia has publicly outlined a comprehensive approach to
ensuring that the commission conducts its work impartially and without bias.
His commitment is reflected through several principles and operational
strategies.
To reinforce fairness, Kobia has led the establishment of
multi-agency teams involving bodies such as the Directorate of Criminal
Investigations, Director of Public Prosecutions, Ethics and Anti-Corruption
Commission, and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
This approach diffuses the risk of single-agency bias and
adds institutional checks and balances.
Kobia has also introduced initiatives like the “wall of
shame” to publicly name politicians and leaders who breach codes of conduct,
regardless of their party or ethnicity.
Such tools of public disclosure are intended to ensure that
the commission’s actions are visible and subject to public scrutiny, reducing
the perception—and likelihood—of bias
Other lesser-publicised interventions have included
peace-building agreements between communities previously at odds.
