Pressure points: threat of violence builds as Kenya’s elections approach
As Kenya’s presidential elections draw closer, the country’s vulnerability to violence is back in evidence.
Politicians here are infamous for inflaming underlying ethnic tensions, by touching on national pressure points, such as historical grievances over land. And this year’s vote comes at a time when the rising cost of living has left many households struggling.
The country has a difficult history with disputed elections. A contested 2007 poll resulted in more than 1,000 deaths. The potential for violence during August’s elections stands at about 53%, according to a report by Kenya’s National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC), due to pre-existing conflicts, possible triggers and weak electoral management institutions.
Experts say political unrest escalates into violence when citizens don’t trust the bodies handling the elections. The NCIC report showed that 26% of Kenyans trust the electoral commission and 23% trust the judiciary. The commission is already facing challenges in court over its bid to use an electronic voter identification system this year, with no physical register as back-up, despite having faced technological failures at the last two elections.
Kenya’s judiciary regained some trust in 2017 after the supreme court annulled the results which saw incumbent president, Uhuru Kenyatta, declared winner, due to widespread discrepancies. In a historic ruling, the court called for another election. However, Kenyatta’s opponent, Raila Odinga, challenged the electoral body’s ability to conduct fair elections, withdrew from the race and called on supporters to boycott the poll. Kenyatta duly became president as violence was met with police crackdowns in western Kenya and in Nairobi – where Odinga was favourite.
Politicians are exploiting high youth unemployment, with some paying youth groups to cause violence and intimidate opponents, according to the NCIC report. Human rights organisation Haki Africa says it has seen an increase in attacks by armed groups in Mombasa in April and May. Mombasa and Nairobi, Kenya’s largest cities, were categorised as highly vulnerable to violence by NCIC.
A 28-year-old political campaigner from Kamukunji, one of Nairobi’s informal settlements, spoke on condition of anonymity. He says politicians often pay groups of young people to intimidate their opponents and block them from campaigning in certain areas. He says that he doesn’t get paid for violence but has worked closely with people who do.
“You’re paid after the work, and per turnout,” he says, explaining that the politicians usually have a single trusted contact, who receives an electronic payment and then pays everyone else in cash. “The going rate varies. If you’re working with someone who’s politically connected, you get around 1,000 Kenyan shillings (£7) per turnout, but if you’re not, you’ll get only around 400KSh.”
They are not paid for direct violence usually, but he says, “When the politician is heckled but doesn’t leave, some supporters will start to use violence.”
He supports the ‘elections bila noma’ campaign – a movement for peaceful elections. “When a politician wins, that’s his win. He doesn’t have to deal with any of the fallout,” he says. “Those who fought for them, who mainly just wanted to make quick money, have to live with the same communities they violently broke up during elections.”
Happy Olal, a social justice activist, says politicians encourage violence by portraying their win as inevitable. “The feeling that their candidate can’t lose causes tensions to blow up,” he says.
Areas such as Kamukunji are highly policed during elections. Olal says this makes outbreaks of violence become a self-fulfilling prophecy. “When you send trucks of police to these areas just a day or two before the polls, you’re
Oklahoma is planning to execute a prisoner on death row nearly every month starting in August through 2024 in a move that is likely to cause outrage among opponents of the death penalty.
The Oklahoma court of criminal appeals set the execution dates on Friday for six inmates, who have all exhausted their appeals, and plans for executions to take place about once a month. The inmates’ capital punishments were on hold because of a lawsuit over botched lethal injections, which led to a more than five-year execution moratorium.
In June, a federal judge ruled that the state’s three-drug lethal injection method is constitutional and does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. After the court ruling, Oklahoma’s attorney general, John O’Connor, asked for more than two dozen executions to be scheduled.
He said in a statement that the six inmates with set execution dates were trialed for murder. The most recent of these murders was in 2003, while the earliest case dates back to 1993.
“The family members of these loved ones have waited decades for justice,” said O’Connor. “My office stands beside them as they take this next step in the journey that the murderers forced upon them.”
More than 42 inmates in Oklahoma are sentenced to death, according to the Oklahoma department of corrections. Oklahoma’s current execution protocol involves administering midazolam, vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride to convicted murderers on death row.
In 2021, the state carried out its first execution since the moratorium was put in place, but witnesses said the Oklahoma inmate convulsed and vomited during the capital punishment.
The court issued in June definitive findings of the execution of John Grant, stating it was “unsurprising” that Grant regurgitated during the execution, given that he had a full stomach at the time.
Several men on death row have claims of innocence, and some lawmakers have been looking into the case of Richard Glossip, who was convicted of arranging the murder of a motel owner in 1997.
Oklahoma legislators announced that an independent investigation revealed strong evidence of the innocence of Glossip, who is scheduled for execution in September.