ELISHA ODHIAMBO: NIS must nimbly recalibrate to new realities of the world

The media and political elites risk reducing Noordin Haji’s recent public to a soundbite, as well as Chief of Defence Forces Charles Kahariri’s rebuke of anti-Ruto protests.

While the general’s remarks warrant scrutiny, fixating on them obscures the substantive core of the lecture at the National Intelligence Research University. 

The essence was the recognition of the seismic shifts demanding reforms at the National Intelligence Service and the skills required to guide the changes.

NIS is navigating a critical phase of institutional recalibration under Director-General Haji, whose 25-year tenure within the agency — longer than his service as a prosecutor — positions him as a leader with both operational familiarity and reform-oriented priorities.

While recent media attention narrowly focused on the CDFs’ remarks about political protests, Haji’s public lecture underscored a strategic pivot for the NIS, emphasising anticipatory risk management over traditional ‘securocratic’ approaches.

The NIS has evolved from its colonial-era origins as a tool of dissent suppression to a post-Independence entity often leveraged for regime security.

The post-9/11 era saw formalisation of the agency in 2012, though leadership remained dominated by military figures prioritising tactical counterterrorism over systemic risks.

Haji’s 2023 appointment as Kenya’s first civilian intelligence chief reflects broader global trends toward integrating legal and governance expertise into security leadership.

His career within the NIS, marked by roles in counterterrorism and organised crime units, includes establishing the agency’s first legal office in 2000.

That was a milestone introducing oversight protocols and human rights considerations into its operations.

These reforms, though incremental, signalled early efforts to align intelligence work with accountability frameworks.

In the public lecture, Haji framed security through interconnected lenses.

First, technological threats seen in the proliferation of drone warfare (e.g., al Shabaab’s operations in Somalia) and AI-driven disinformation, both of which necessitate investments in cybersecurity and partnerships with tech sectors to monitor threats such as cryptocurrency-funded terrorism.

Second, climate-driven conflict flowing out of resource scarcity, especially in Kenya’s arid regions, exacerbated by climate change. This situation can be framed as a driver of cross-border instability, requiring predictive analytics to mitigate displacement and violence.

Third, systemic corruption, which clearly is a catalyst for terrorism and ethnic strife, undermines public trust in institutions, a perspective informed by Haji’s work dismantling organised crime networks.

And fourth, need for regional collaboration, recognising that global powers are reorienting to domestic priorities, hence, the need for an African-led intervention via regional agencies to address crises such as Sudan’s conflict, emphasising sovereignty and localised solutions.

This framework departs from past militarised strategies by integrating socioeconomic, environmental and diplomatic dimensions into security planning.

Notably, Haji’s emphasis on public engagement — including partnerships with academia and media — aligns with his earlier institutional reforms, which sought to balance operational secrecy with transparency.

The NIS’s transition today faces structural and cultural hurdles, however. The agency’s historical reliance on military leadership may engender resistance to civilian-driven priorities, such as leveraging Kenya’s tech sector for AI-driven threat analysis or climate modelling.

Funding these initiatives requires parliamentary commitment to modernise budget allocations beyond traditional security expenditures, prioritising cyber-defence and climate resilience.

Bold leadership is required if we are to balance innovation with accountability. Strengthening parliamentary oversight — through committee reviews or public reporting mechanisms — could enhance transparency without compromising operational efficacy.

However, politicisation remains a risk; maintaining neutrality by the NIS amidst electoral cycles will demand rigorous adherence to statutory mandates.

The reform blueprint outlines a pragmatic roadmap for the NIS, aligning Kenya’s security strategy with 21st-century challenges.

Drawing from a foundation for reforms that emphasise anticipatory governance, the future success of NIS hinges on institutional and political support.

Parliament must prioritise funding for technological and analytical upgrades, while civil society and media can foster accountability through informed scrutiny. Comparisons to past intelligence eras — from Kenyatta’s state-building to Kibaki’s counterterrorism partnerships — highlight the evolving role of the NIS as a facilitator of stability.

Haji’s reforms, while ambitious, are consistent with global shifts toward multidimensional security models. The agency’s ability to adapt will depend on sustained collaboration across sectors, avoiding partisan entanglements, and maintaining focus on systemic risks rather than transient threats.

Haji’s tenure represents a test case for Kenya’s capacity to modernise its security infrastructure. The outcomes will hinge less on individual leadership than on institutional agility and societal engagement — a reminder that intelligence reform is a collective enterprise, demanding both innovation and restraint.

The writer is the MP for Gem constituency