The Nancy Baraza-led Technical Working Group (TWG) on gender based violence (GBV) report finally appeared. A lot of work went into it, and it contains snapshots of the situations in counties, and the results of surveys. Maybe it tells us little we don’t know – but, when not everyone is convinced of the severity of the issue, any concrete information is welcome. Interestingly it includes a table of overlooked forms of GBV – including by police (I am not sure it is overlooked, but it’s certainly not adequately responded to).

Yet, at the end of the day, it is a bit disappointing.

Comments

Some of the data could have been more usefully presented. A map indicates the percentage of women by county that have experienced GBV; Nairobi was “medium”. But for femicide (killing of a female because of her gender) the figures are just of numbers by county, not in terms of county populations. So Nairobi has the most and Garissa, Lamu, and Mandera are among those with the least. But Nairobi has fewer than 10% of the total though its population is well over 10% of the national population – so its rate is below average. And maybe cases in Nairobi are more likely to be reported than in some counties- rather than being high because of “socio-cultural dynamics and varying levels of institutional capacity.”

While there is a good deal of mention of what other countries have done, there is little discussion of what works. As Dr Okumba Miruka commented in the Daily Nation, there is some detail on the measures taken by Fiji, but nothing on what has been the impact. But what works? 

So I asked a well-informed friend in Fiji who said that their National Action Plan “is very well conceived and therefore impressive in its breadth of understanding of the problem of GBV as systemic and pervasive and part of a patriarchal culture which endures”. But despite “a high level of public awareness of rights, access to justice etc.,” “the cases keep growing and this is not unrelated to worsening economic conditions of life for a growing majority.”

Suggestions made

The TWG has made many suggestions; I can touch on only some. Many relate to the importance of better data – like a Gender Based Violence Information Management System. Implementing existing policies is an important theme – like the parenting policy. Setting up bodies and institutions like “One-stop GBV response centres in high-prevalence counties”, rescue centres in all counties, more gender courts all appear. So does the necessity need to engage men and boys in the issue.

Training and education of various sorts is mentioned frequently. Sex education in schools so “young people can learn about healthy relationships, consent, gender equality, and respectful communication from an early age”. One wonders how far school education can counteract the impact of social media – which the report also highlights.  

Many of the recommendations are about our inadequately functioning institutions, such as the police, prosecutions, the judiciary. Impunity is already a familiar theme when we talk about corruption, about police violence.  

Almost everything costs money. Except for State House and Parliament, it seems every government institution and programme is underfunded. And we all know how one third of government money is lost to corruption. The TWG could not do anything about these issues. But it would perhaps be good to get a sense of priorities – where should scarce resources be focussed?

Controversial recommendations.

First the GBV should be declared a national crisis. We have plenty of these. But there is no provision for the release of extra funds, otherwise kept safely locked up as it were, to deal with something deemed a crisis.  It’s the sort of thing a politician might say to look as though they are doing something.

Second, femicide should be defined as a specific offence, not just come under murder.   Several countries have done this especially in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This may make it easier to keep statistics of femicide. Perhaps it may lead to sentencing for femicide being stiffer than it would otherwise. However, at least one study has suggested that this approach has caused “no reduction in the number of hate killings of women and girls, women going missing, or overall homicides of women”. This is not surprising – it is not clear how far stiff sentences deter criminals. Even the death penalty does not seem to be a special deterrent. I have earlier suggested that the likelihood of being detected and convicted is more important.

Law that made the penalty for killing a woman heavier than killing a man would be on the face of it unconstitutional.

I am sure we can ensure that data is collected on how many woman-killing cases are tried (and the outcomes) without needing to create a separate offence.

And the issue of sentencing (now that in Kenya the punishment for murder is not automatically death) should be dealt with in the Sentencing Guidelines. In fact they have been revised after the Muruatetu death penalty decision. Under “Aggravating Factors in Murder Cases” they include that “Offence was motivated by, or there was demonstrated hostility to the victim based on his or her race, gender, sex, sexual orientation …” and “A history of assaults, threats, or coercion upon the same victim”.  Is more needed?  (The Guidelines are not mentioned in the TWG Report.)

In an off-hand manner, the Report says there should be the possibility of chemical castration (that renders a man impotent) for offenders under the Sexual Offences Act. But there is no discussion of this highly complicated matter. A number of countries have introduced it, and the UK is likely to do so on a trial basis.

It would probably be unconstitutional here. Inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be permitted at all, not even within the Constitution Article 24 guidelines on limiting rights (Article 25). However, the approach in some countries is to offer this treatment to some as an alternative to, or along with, a reduction in a prison term. So it is part of a prison decongestion approach. It is not mandatory. Maybe the courts might consider this was not inhuman or degrading.

Like Dr Miruka I have doubts about mandatory and minimum sentences – also proposed by the TWG. It has become clear that many judges do, too.

Other issues

First spending money and urging proper operation of institutions may be totally ineffective. Lectures on human rights may equally be a waste of time. What is lacking in this connection as in so many others, is leadership, especially in the police, and the office of the DPP – and in the courts. Not just speechifying but real leadership within the institutions. 

Secondly, I would have liked more emphasis on the “empowerment” of women. I am not blaming the victims, but I do believe that if women have more choices they are exposed to less risk. Part of this is a matter of culture, of course. But more knowledge of their bodies, and issues of pregnancy, easier access to contraception, more possibilities of legally terminating pregnancies might mean fewer cases forced  marriages. Economic empowerment has been shown to increase choices (like leaving abusive relationships). This includes the rights to inheritance that the Constitution recognises. More self-confidence should translate to less dependence on men – and greater willingness to say “No”.

Finally, general governance failures have their implications for GBV. Not only in the lack of choices for women. Stress in society, including financial stress , sometimes plays out in family violence – as in Fiji perhaps.  And failures to deal with banditry and other violence will often lead to more gender violence. Similarly drought and other disasters that lead to forced migration are likely to impact women through interpersonal violence.

This article was first published by The Star Newspaper.

Image:HANDOUT