KHALID: KNCHR must get Gen Z reparations and compensation right

The ongoing repatriation and compensation process under the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights presents a critical opportunity for the country to confront its painful past and restore dignity to victims and their families.

This reckoning particularly concerns the atrocities committed during the Gen Z protests across the country since 2024.

The reparations process carries the weight of justice, healing and national accountability. For it to achieve these goals, however, it must be anchored firmly on transparency, independence and a truly victim-centred approach.

There is no doubt the commission is operating under immense pressure. The scale of the task is enormous, the expectations are high and time is limited. We acknowledge these constraints.

However, even within these challenges, KNCHR is expected to and must do better. Justice processes, particularly those dealing with human rights violations and loss of life, cannot afford to be rushed, opaque, or detached from the very people they are meant to serve -pub the victims and their families.

KNCHR is an independent national human rights institution established under Article 59 and the KNCHR Act, 2011. It acts as a watchdog, monitoring government institutions, promoting human rights and advising on compliance with national and international standards.

So far, there is a growing sense of frustration among victims and affected families. Many remain unclear about the procedures, timelines and criteria guiding the process.

This lack of clarity risks eroding public confidence and undermining the legitimacy of what should be a historic and restorative undertaking. A process that leaves victims confused is one that is already faltering.

To restore trust and ensure the process meets its intended purpose, several urgent measures must be taken, mainly by the commission.

First, KNCHR must operate independently and without undue influence from State House or any other political actors. Human rights accountability cannot be subjected to political convenience.

The integrity of this process depends entirely on the commission’s ability to act impartially and courageously, free from interference of any kind. Any perception of external control will immediately delegitimise the outcomes.

Second, the agency must resist the pressure to rush the process. There are clear indications that political actors are keen to see this exercise concluded hastily, particularly in light of the anticipated Gen Z commemorations on June 25, marking two years since the tragic and senseless killings during the Occupy Parliament protests of 2024.

While there may be a desire to “cool temperatures” ahead of this date, justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. KNCHR should, if necessary, formally request more time to carry out its mandate thoroughly and properly. The focus must not be on meeting political timelines but on delivering justice that is credible, comprehensive and enduring.

Third, there is need for a clear prioritisation framework. The commission should begin with the most recent cases, particularly those arising from the Gen Z protests, and then progressively work backwards.

These cases remain fresh, the victims are still grappling with immediate loss and trauma and public attention remains high. Addressing them promptly and transparently would send a strong signal of commitment and seriousness to the victims and the greater public.

Fourth, KNCHR must clearly outline and publicise all points of data submission across the country. Victims should not have to struggle to know where, how and through whom they can submit their claims.

Accessibility is a cornerstone of a victim-centred process. This includes decentralising submission points and ensuring that information is widely disseminated through multiple channels and across the country.

Fifth, the commission must actively collaborate with community partners, including civil society organisations, community-based organisations, grassroots networks, activists and human rights defenders. These actors are often closest to the victims and have already built trust within communities.

Leveraging these networks will not only enhance data collection but also ensure that no victim is left behind due to logistical or informational barriers.

Finally, KNCHR must commit to regular, transparent public updates. Kenyans deserve to know the progress being made, the challenges encountered and the steps being taken to address them.

Regular communication will foster public confidence and demonstrate that the process is not only ongoing but also accountable to the people.

At its core, this process is not about institutions, timelines or political optics. It is about people - victims who lost their loved ones, individuals who suffered harm and families still searching for closure.

Every decision, every step and every outcome must be guided by their needs and their dignity. KNCHR must avoid the temptation to serve the executive and political leaders.

The repatriation and compensation process must remain firmly victim-centred. It must not be reduced to a public relations exercise or a hurried attempt to pacify public anger.

Those entrusted with this responsibility must remember that they are serving the victims, not their own interests, not political masters and certainly not the convenience of the moment.

If done right, this process can mark a turning point in Kenya’s human rights journey. If done poorly, it risks becoming yet another chapter of injustice. The choice lies with KNCHR and the time to act is now.