Kenya's High Court ruled against sending police officers to Haiti, citing unconstitutionality of deployment.
President William Ruto and his National Security Council do not have the authority to send police officers outside Kenya under Article 240 (8) of the Constitution.
On January 26, 2024, the High Court of Kenya ruled that President William Ruto and his National Security Council do not have the authority to send police officers outside Kenya under Article 240 (8) of the Constitution. The court also declared that any other government agency or person who decides to deploy police officers to Haiti will be in breach of the constitution.
The petition was filed by Thirdway Alliance leader Ekuru Aukot, and those named as respondents were President Ruto, Interior CS Kithure Kindiki, Police IG Japhet Koome, National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi and the National Security Council. The court noted that Kenya had offered to deploy police officers to Haiti on July 2023 to curb insecurity and that the request was approved by the United Nations (UN) Security Council on October 10.
The petitioners told the judge that President Ruto welcomed the move in a televised address, reiterating Kenya's willingness to deploy. However, they also stated that there was no Cabinet meeting and a resultant Cabinet Memo/resolution to evince that due process was followed.
In their submissions to the court, the petitioners said the 2010 Constitution does not provide for the deployment of police officers on missions outside Kenya, making it unconstitutional.
Kenya court blocks deployment of police officers to Haiti
Gang violence rose by more than 100% in Haiti last year with over 800 victims documented.
Haitian people have had enough of armed gangs' savagery.
Accuracy
Kenya agreed to lead a multinational force financed by the United States to restore security in Haiti
The international force was meant to help break the grip of these gangs on Port-au-Prince
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Kenyan police force will be led by Declan Walsh and Frances Robles but does not disclose their roles or affiliations with any other organizations. This implies that they are independent journalists when in fact they work for The New York Times which has a clear political bias.
The article mentions the United Nations as being involved in funding the mission to Haiti, but it fails to mention that the US government is also heavily involved and has been pushing for this intervention. This omission creates an impression of impartiality when in fact there are significant political interests at play.
The article states that the Kenyan police force will be led by Declan Walsh and Frances Robles but does not disclose their roles or affiliations with any other organizations. This implies that they are independent journalists when in fact they work for The New York Times which has a clear political bias.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. The author cites the United Nations and the US government as backing Kenya's deployment to Haiti without providing any evidence or reasoning for why these organizations should be trusted. Additionally, there is no mention of any other countries contributing troops to the mission, which raises questions about its feasibility.
The article states that 'the United Nations and the US government have been unwilling to commit their own troops.' This implies that they are authoritative sources on whether or not foreign military forces should be sent in to restore order. However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a clear example of bias in the form of an opinion piece that is critical of Kenya's decision to deploy police officers to Haiti. The author uses language such as 'jeopardizing', 'throwing into doubt', and 'stalled since October' which are all examples of loaded words designed to create a negative impression. Additionally, the article contains quotes from opponents of the mission that are presented without any counter-argument or context, further contributing to an imbalanced viewpoint.
The force was intended to eventually increase to 3,000 security officers.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Declan Walsh and Frances Robles have a conflict of interest on the topic of armed gangs in Port-au-Prince as they are reporting for The New York Times which has financial ties to multinational security forces that may be involved in combating these gangs.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Declan Walsh and Frances Robles have a conflict of interest on the topic of armed gangs in Port-au-Prince as they are reporting for The New York Times which has financial ties to multinational security forces that may be involved in combating these gangs.
Kenya court blocks deployment of police officers to Haiti
High Court judge Chacha Mwita ruled on Friday that President William Ruto and his National Security Council do not have the authority to send police officers to Haiti or any other country under Kenyan law.
The long-delayed deployment under a deal financed by the United States contravenes the constitution and the law and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and invalid.
Kenya volunteered to lead it (the multinational force) but got necessary approvals from its cabinet and parliament.
Ekuru Aukot led a legal challenge to the planned in deployment in court, terming it unconstitutional. The high court ruling agreed with him.
The ruling poses a potential setback for Kenya's peacekeeping mission to Haiti having previously supported similar initiatives by the UN and the African Union.
Accuracy
Haitian people have had enough of armed gangs' savagery.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Kenya has been barred from deploying police officers to Haiti by a judge in Kenya. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that the Kenyan government had already made plans to send police officers and was stopped by a court order when in fact no such plans were ever made public or approved. Secondly, the author quotes Judge Chacha Mwita as saying that there can be no legitimate deployment of police officers to Haiti because Kenya has not agreed on reciprocal arrangements with Haiti. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that Kenya had previously agreed to such an arrangement when in fact no evidence was provided to support this claim. Finally, the author quotes Judge Mwita as saying that gang violence rose by more than 100% in Haiti last year with over 8000 victims documented. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Kenya's deployment of police officers would have had a direct impact on reducing gang violence when in fact there was no evidence to support such a claim.
The author quotes Judge Chacha Mwita as saying that there can be no legitimate deployment of police officers to Haiti because Kenya has not agreed on reciprocal arrangements with Haiti. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that Kenya had previously agreed to such an arrangement when in fact no evidence was provided to support this claim.
The article claims that gang violence rose by more than 100% in Haiti last year with over 8000 victims documented. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Kenya's deployment of police officers would have had a direct impact on reducing gang violence when in fact there was no evidence to support such a claim.
The article claims that Kenya has been barred from deploying police officers to Haiti by a judge in Kenya. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that the Kenyan government had already made plans to send police officers and was stopped by a court order when in fact no such plans were ever made public or approved.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling of a judge in Kenya as evidence that Kenyan police officers cannot be deployed to Haiti. However, this does not necessarily mean that the judge's decision is correct or binding on other countries. Additionally, the author quotes a statement from Haiti's foreign minister urging for a speedy deployment of the multinational force without providing any evidence to support their claim.
The long-delayed deployment under a deal financed by the United States contravenes the constitution and law and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and invalid.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that the Kenyan government does not have the authority to send police officers to Haiti under Kenyan law. This is an example of religious bias as it implies that Kenya's laws are based on religion and therefore cannot be changed or ignored for political reasons.
The long-delayed deployment under a deal financed by the United States contravenes the constitution and the law and is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and invalid.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The authors have a financial stake in Kenya and Haiti as they are both countries where CNN operates.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Larry Madowo and Nimi Princewill have a conflict of interest on the topics of Kenya, Haiti, UN-backed multinational force, security in Haiti and gang violence in Haiti as they are reporting on an article that discusses William Ruto's involvement with these topics.
Larry Madowo is a Kenyan journalist who has reported extensively on the country's political landscape. He may have personal or professional ties to individuals or organizations involved in Kenya, which could compromise his ability to report objectively and impartially.
Kenya agreed to lead a multinational force financed by the United States to restore security in Haiti
The international force was meant to help break the grip of these gangs on Port-au-Prince
Gang violence rose by more than 100% in Haiti last year with over 800 victims documented
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that President Ruto has been dealt a blow after the High Court halted a UN-backed plan to deploy 1,000 police officers to Haiti. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that President Ruto was directly involved in the decision and had control over it when in fact he only welcomed the move. Secondly, the author quotes Justice Mwita saying that Article 240 of the Constitution allows for defence forces to be deployed outside Kenya but not police officers. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that there are no exceptions to this rule when in fact there may be circumstances where police officers can be deployed outside Kenya under certain conditions. Finally, the author claims that President Ruto's name should be struck out of the case and any other government agency or person who decides to deploy police officers to Haiti will be in breach of the Constitution. However, this statement is not supported by evidence and may have been included for sensationalism purposes.
The article claims that President Ruto has been dealt a blow after the High Court halted a UN-backed plan to deploy 1,000 police officers to Haiti. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that President Ruto was directly involved in the decision and had control over it when in fact he only welcomed the move.
The article claims that President Ruto's name should be struck out of the case and any other government agency or person who decides to deploy police officers to Haiti will be in breach of the Constitution. However, this statement is not supported by evidence and may have been included for sensationalism purposes.
The author quotes Justice Mwita saying that Article 240 of the Constitution allows for defence forces to be deployed outside Kenya but not police officers. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that there are no exceptions to this rule when in fact there may be circumstances where police officers can be deployed outside Kenya under certain conditions.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling of a judge and stating that it is against the law to deploy police officers outside Kenya without a reciprocal agreement. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or legal precedent. Additionally, the author misrepresents Article 240 of the Constitution as recognizing only defense forces but not police services, which contradicts other provisions in the same article and creates confusion about what constitutes a force under Kenyan law.
The judge ruled that “the National Police Service does not fall under the category of defence forces”. This statement is incorrect as Article 240(8) specifically mentions police officers as part of defense forces.
The author states that there was no Cabinet meeting or resolution to evince due process, but this claim is unsupported by any evidence in the article.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Richard Munguti and he has a history of bias against President William Ruto. The author uses language that dehumanizes President Ruto by referring to him as 'President William Ruto's name should be struck out of the case'. This shows an extreme position on one side, which could be seen as biased.
In their submissions to the court, the petitioners said the 2010 Constitution does not provide for the deployment of police officers on missions outside the country, making it unconstitutional.
The petitioners told the judge that President Ruto welcomed the move in a televised address, reiterating Kenya’s willingness to deploy.
