It is clear that corruption and unethical behaviour by traffic officers enforcing law on our public roads take prominence in our bi-weekly online engagement.
And as we have routinely responded – and in all honesty and fairness – we continue to offer the official position of National Police Service on issues of malfeasance.
Our mission is strictly towards service delivery, in a responsible and responsive way, and in adherence to all our laws of the land including public ethics and integrity expectation.
But giving an official position is one thing, if not damage control, and the persistence of the vice by a few of our agents is another. The service, therefore, has a primary obligation to enforce compliance of our officers against institutional official policy and practice. And to this, we lead from the front and shall continue to do so till the objective is met.
This is why the Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General Kenya Police Service called a traffic management and enforcement multiagency brainstorming last month. The National Transport and Safety Authority, as a critical partner in the traffic management and enforcement, was at the table.
To ensure that the meeting was as inclusive as possible, the media too was invited to participate. As an interest group in governance issues, they could ask tough questions on behalf of the public.
This meeting had candid conversations around sticking issues of corruption on the roads; traffic accidents, including comparative statistics for the year as against the past year and contributory factors to accidents; inconveniencing roadblocks; challenges in enforcing traffic rules; road-based community policing initiatives through civic education and road safety campaigns were the mainstay of the agenda. Corresponding key recommendations were respectively arrived at.
These recommendations centred on improving efficacy and efficiency of traffic operations. Authorities set the tempo high by demystifying the fallacious belief that the objective of road traffic operations was to detect, arrest and charge motorists. The objective and mission of traffic operations was rather to clear the roads off all obstructions and hence improve the free flow of traffic.
This illuminating reality is a paradigm shift towards long-term improvement of otherwise existing tense relations between traffic police, motorists and other road users. This shift is thus monumental in that it has the power to radically alter the way police view motorists and other road users, and vice versa.
Laws must be enforced. But the primary responsibility, as discussed, was bestowed on road users than the police. This, therefore, calls for road discipline and personal responsibility, including attentive care for other road users. Why overlap when all motorists possess just one motive: to arrive at their destinations on time? This is commonsensical, and commonsense makes good sense! But once road deviance persists, then law enforcement must take over, and firmly so.
Other resolutions revolved around corruption. Regional commanders were given their marching orders to rein in errant officers who tarnish the good work of hard-working traffic officers. Miscreants were thus put on notice that their days were numbered, if not over.
Complaints on numerous roadblocks that inconvenience the public were also attended to. It was resolved, as a policy that no static roadblocks should be mounted whimsically. Exceptions were on occasions where multi-agency roadblocks with a clear time-bound objective were authorised by either the regional or county police commanders, but not otherwise. Regional traffic officers were thus challenged to ensure compliance with this directive to the letter.
And whenever crackdowns are mounted to net unroadworthy vehicles, which pose a danger to lives through accidents, traffic officers were exhorted instead to have a human face and desist from inconveniencing the public, especially innocent travellers. Though without an easy solution, police discretion was routed for and to be exercised on such delicate occasions.
For example, if a PSV is netted over an offence related to a driver’s culpability, then there is no justification to impound such vehicle but contact the owner to arrange for a replacement within a reasonable time.
And if the offence is minor in nature as most traffic offences are, then the driver could as well be “warned” as allowed by the Traffic Act. The net effect of such a humane action is reflected in improved relations between police with not only the drivers but also passengers.
The personnel will also be conducting civic education and road safety awareness to the public, especially schools, motorcycle riders (boda boda) and PSV drivers. The Highway Code was equally stressed as a key area of pushing public knowledge.
These recommendations shall be followed through from the headquarters to ensure compliance. There is a need for a lean but effective and agile traffic police function focused on responsible and responsive service delivery. NPS therefore remains committed in monitoring the behaviours of its officers to ensure adherence to policy, practice and public expectation.
NPS Director of Corporate Communication/Spokesperson
