On 7th March 2024, The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) brought to the attention of the nation a pressing issue plaguing our society: the crisis of unintended teenage pregnancies, which is a gross human rights violation. Statistics from the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) 2022 report indicated that the prevalence of teenage pregnancy in Kenya stood at 15% among adolescent girls aged 15 - 19 years with some counties such as Samburu having the highest prevalence at 50%.
Further, a report by the National Syndemic Disease Control Council (NSDCC) revealed that 696 adolescent girls were impregnated daily in 2023. As a result of these shocking and alarming statistics, The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) launched the red card campaign where we red carded twenty (20) governors and the CS for Health for abetting pregnancies among adolescents' girls by failing to develop and implement sufficient policy frameworks to protect our adolescent girls. The twenty governors represent counties with the highest cases of teenage pregnancies in percentages and in absolute numbers as reported by the KDHS 2022 report. The red carded governors leading in percentages included:
The red carded governors leading in numbers included.
We also called on the following to take decisive actions to mitigate unintended adolescent pregnancies:
To follow up on the red cards, we sustained a comprehensive mainstream and social media campaign to urge the 20 governors to take proactive measures to address the alarming rates of teenage pregnancies in their counties and to also stir a national conversation on this crisis.
Beyond issuing the red cards and the media campaign, we sent official letters to the 20 governors asking them to explain the specific practical interventions and guidelines they have developed to address the crisis of teenage pregnancies in their respective counties. None of the governors have replied to our request.
Recognizing that the plight of these adolescent girls cannot be ignored and the need to take swift and decisive actions to protect the rights, dignity and well-being of our girls, we have decided to exercise our right to petition parliament as provided for in articles 119 and 37 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
PETITIONS TO THE SENATE AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
The two Petitions brought under Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 19, 27, 28, 29, 37, 43, 95, 118 and 119 of the Constitution of Kenya, Petitions to Parliament (Procedures) Act and Standing Orders 219 and 223 of The National Assembly was filed and received on the 18th of April 2024 at the Senate and National Assembly main records unit. In the petition to the Senate, the KHRC urges the Senate to;
In the petition to the National Assembly, the KHRC urges the National Assembly to,
These petitions reflect our unwavering commitment to advocating for the rights and welfare of adolescent girls across the country and our firm belief in the accountability of governmental institutions to address these critical issues. We trust that Parliament will exercise its mandate under articles 95 and 96 of the constitution and respond with the urgency and gravity that this matter demands to effect meaningful oversight for the sake of the future of our nation.
Thank you.
Signed,
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)
Editor's note: Read the petition here.
Nine civil society organizations have sued Inspector-General of Police Japhet Koome for curtailing the rights of doctors to strike, assemble, protest and picket.
Koome has been personally sued, meaning the National Police Service (NPS) will not provide legal coverage for him. Any court orders issued will directly target Koome rather than the Service.
On April 14, 2024, Koome said police under his command would “deal decisively and firmly” with the striking and picketing medics.
The nine organizations wrote to Koome, demanding he retract his threats and apologize, but he refused, necessitating the case.
“Applicants fear that this directive requires police officers to forcefully disperse peaceful and unarmed protests by the medics,” the suit says.
Doctors have been on strike since March 13, 2024, demanding improvements in the country's healthcare system, including hiring trainee doctors, better working conditions, and equal pay for equal work.
But the government, doctors said, refused to come to the negotiating table after it reduced the pay of medical interns by 77 per cent to Sh47,000.
The government has insisted that talks can only resume if doctors end their strike, a condition that the medics find dishonest. They have planned multiple protests to pressure the government to address their grievances, citing their constitutional right.
In the lawsuit, the organizations seek to hold Koome accountable for any harm inflicted by police officers under his command on protesting doctors. They argue that Koome's directive endangers the rights and lives of medics by potentially motivating police officers to use force to enforce his order.
They also want all police officers restrained from enforcing Koome’s illegal order.
The groups’ fears of police violence against medics are justified. For instance, on February 29, 2024, at Afya Center, police fired at Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union (KMPDU) secretary-general Dr Davji Atela during a peaceful protest, injuring his head.
Consequently, the CSOs also want the court to compel Koome to pay Atela, from his personal funds, “compensation in the form of general damages for violating his rights while using unlawful force”.
The organizations involved in the lawsuit against Koome are KHRC, Katiba Institute, ICJ Kenya, and Transparency International Kenya. Others are TISA, AFRICOG, Siasa Place, Tribless Youth and MUHURI. Law Society of Kenya (LSK), KMPDU, and Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) are interested parties.
Nairobi, Kenya—On April 15, 2024, the world marked one year since the outbreak of war in Sudan.
It has been a year of immense hardship for countless innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
The ongoing conflict has led to widespread suffering, including violence, hunger, and displacement.
More than 8.6 million people have fled their homes, with 1.8 million people, primarily women and children, crossing to neighboring countries.
Thousands are still crossing the borders to South Sudan and Chad.
Urgent action is needed to address the humanitarian crisis and uphold human rights.
The international community, along with organizations like the African Union and the United Nations, must intensify efforts to protect civilians and prevent further violence.
There is a critical need to provide increased humanitarian assistance to those most affected by this conflict. This includes ensuring access to essentials like shelter, clean water, and medical care.
Monitoring human rights abuses and coordinating international support are vital aspects of the collective response to the crisis in Sudan.
Diplomatic initiatives and mediation efforts must succeed. They are needed to facilitate dialogue between warring factions and work towards a lasting peace agreement.
Establishing mechanisms for justice and accountability is essential to holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable and providing justice for victims.
Looking ahead
Concerted action is needed from all quarters to end the war in Sudan, as the stories and images from the country serve as a stark reminder of the human cost of this conflict.
Long-term investment in Sudan's infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems is important for rebuilding communities and promoting stability.
Involving local communities, civil society organizations, and women's groups fosters inclusive peacebuilding processes.
Let's join hands to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the Sudanese people and contribute to a brighter future for the country.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Katiba Institute, on April 11, 2024, filed a case to halt unlawful housing levy deductions towards the so-called "affordable housing project".
Kenyan MPs had, on February 21, 2024, approved the Affordable Housing Act of 2024, which allowed the government to deduct 1.5 per cent of employees' monthly gross salary and similar amounts from employers for the houses, a project marred by controversies and coercion.
However, unlike MPs, the Senators didn't give people enough chance to share their opinions before this law was passed.
The lawsuit argues that because people weren't given adequate say in the Senate in making this law, it goes against the Constitution. So, the law itself is unconstitutional.
President William Ruto approved the law on March 19, 2024, despite this.
How it started
This legal action began because of a law passed in 2023 called the Finance Act. This law made workers and their bosses pay a housing levy even if they weren't guaranteed a house.
Civil society groups, including KHRC, went to court to challenge how this law was made and how the housing levy was collected.
On November 28, 2023, the court ruled that the housing levy was unfair and against the Constitution because only formal workers had to pay, leaving out informal workers.
In response, MPs quickly passed a new law in 2024, the Affordable Housing Act, to fix the problems with the 2023 law and keep collecting the housing levy.
Current situation
The new law still doesn't say how unemployed people should pay the housing levy. It only says that formal workers must pay, leaving out informal workers.
Treating people differently like this is seen as unfair and goes against the Constitution, according to the legal action.
Despite being called "affordable housing," the law doesn't really make housing cheaper. It helps wealthy people buy houses while forcing poor people to pay for them, even though they might remain homeless.
Apart from seeking to stop more housing levy deductions, KHRC and Katiba Institute want the court to compel the government to give back the money they already took from employers and employees.
Read the petition here.
A Mombasa High Court has declared that the 2012 killing of a family man by a CIA-backed Recce Company squad was “unwarranted…unjustifiable and unlawful”. The court also awarded 6.5 million Ksh in damages to his estate.
The judgement comes after legal action against the National Police Service, Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General, taken by Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) in the public interest.
“I am convinced that the shooting of the deceased, Omar Faraj, was totally unwarranted”, Justice Olga Sewe said in her judgement. She described the night raid by the Recce paramilitary team to be an “unjustifiable and unlawful invasion of their home…without any reasonable or probable cause for suspicion of any offence committed by Omar Faraj and his wife.”
MUHURI took the legal action after a report by British investigative journalist, Namir Shabibi, which revealed that Faraj was killed in a night raid by a paramilitary commando team created, trained, equipped, and guided by the CIA on so-called ‘counterterrorism’ operations.
Shabibi’s investigation, published by Declassified UK in 2020, revealed that the Rapid Response Team (RRT) – which formally belongs to the Recce Company, but is effectively run by the CIA – had killed Faraj in a case of mistaken identity. The commandos had in fact been hunting Fuad Abubakar Manswab but were led to Faraj’s family home in Mombasa on the night of 28 October 2012 by an informant working with Kenya’s NIS.
Faraj’s widow, Rahma Ali, recalled watching the RRT commandos open fire on her husband, who was balanced on a flowerpot trying to climb his garden wall, as he fled out of fear. The RRT paramilitaries shot him in the temple, and Faraj fell back on top of his wife, blood streaming from his head. Fearing that the commandos would kill her too, Ali, who was covered in her husband’s blood, said she played dead next to him. The M4 carbines used by the RRT to murder Faraj had been supplied by the CIA.
The Kenyan government never acknowledged its role in Faraj’s killing, instead claiming that security forces killed “terrorists” after being fired upon. It was similarly unabashed about the fate of Titus Nabiswa, the informant who wrongly led the commandos to Faraj’s house that night. Nabiswa’s body was later found dumped, killed by a gunshot wound to the head in an apparent summary execution by Kenyan police. Both Kenya’s NIS and ATPU were also present on the operation that killed Faraj.
In his petition, MUHURI board member, Khelef Khalifa said that the failure by the police to take action to ensure justice “was an affront, not only to the rule of law and the fundamental tenets of democracy, but also to the rights of the deceased and his family.”
Justice Sewe noted in her judgement that the NPS did not contest the facts of the raid in the early hours of 28 Oct 2012, as established by MUHURI and Declassified UK’s investigations. She added that the NPS, DPP and AG failed to provide a factual response to the petitioners’ supporting affidavits. After MUHURI stated its case, the evidential burden shifted to the police to demonstrate that the shooting was warranted, but “not a whiff” of explanation was forthcoming, Sewe observed.
Faraj’s widow, Rahma Ali asserted that the court's rulings vindicated her husband's innocence and denounced his summary execution as a violation of his right to life. She expressed:
"It's a bitter-sweet moment. Bitter because my husband can never return. Sweet because the court affirmed his innocence. His killing was unjustified. This wasn't about seeking compensation, but about affirming that an innocent man cannot be murdered without consequence. This is the initial step towards ensuring accountability for those who took my husband's life. They must face justice."
Official government records obtained by Declassified UK show that the CIA’s relationship to the Recce Company dates to the 1980s. After 9/11, the CIA rapidly developed a network of paramilitary-police partnerships in over sixty countries, which one European Union investigation described as a “global spider’s web”. The RRT special squad was itself created in 2004, in a joint CIA-NIS-GSU effort, and has worked with the CIA on tactical counter-terrorism operations, including renditions and kill-capture operations.
The RRT paramilitaries, who are trained by the CIA in the United States, use covert tactics such as fake number plates and often operate under the cover of night. They also disguise themselves as aid workers on operations in Kenya’s refugee camps. The RRT sets out to kill or capture targets, largely provided by the CIA and NIS, but also Britain’s MI6, Shabibi’s investigation found. One commando said of the RRT’s tactics:
“When we were trained on threats, we were taught human rights come later. If you have this bad guy and you cannot get him for interrogation, then you’d better execute [him]”
Commenting on the Declassified UK’s 2020 investigation, former US ambassador Michael Ranneberger said:
“All of this, of course, is linked to the culture of impunity, and heavy-handed tactics contribute towards radicalisation.”
Khelef Khalifa, MUHURI’s board member commented:
“The High Court judgement is a milestone in accountability for abuses in Kenya: it's the first time a victim's family has been awarded compensation for killing in counterterrorism, despite 20 years of state murder, enforced disappearances and renditions. I applaud Justice Sewe’s bravery, which is just the first step in holding Kenyan police to account over its contempt for the law. But we must remember: the monetary award does not bring Omar Faraj back to his family, nor does it hold the criminal RRT, NIS and ATPU officers to account for his murder. These forces have repeatedly shown a preference for spilling blood over using the due process, and the murder of Faraj is just one of countless cases of state crime against the Kenyan people. MUHURI fully intends to hold the individual officers concerned liable for Faraj’s murder, as it seeks to uphold the constitution and rule of law. I trust the Kenyan judiciary will remain as impartial as Justice Sewe has shown it can be.”
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Photos can be used on condition of credit.
Nairobi, Kenya— Busia Senator and comrade Okiya Omtatah has during the last 20 years faced many attacks for his strong opposition to the gross injustices the country is facing.
These strikes have escalated in recent months, culminating in the invasion of his rural home on April 3, 2024, at night.
Omtatah is a spirited human rights and social justice defender. He is known for his staunch resistance to unconstitutional and anti-people decisions made by the deeply oppressive organs of the Kenyan State. They include but are not limited to the national and county governments and assemblies across regimes.
Most recently, he and others - including KHRC - contested the Housing Levy, which the court deemed unconstitutional, yet the Kenya Kwanza regime persists in enforcing it.
The first attack occurred on December 16, 2023, when William Ruto openly made what appeared to be a death threats against Omtatah and others opposing the Housing Levy. During a church event at Cardinal High School in Mosocho, Ruto suggested using the ceremonial sword handed to him during his swearing-in to deal with those opposing the levy.
Despite Omtatah's attempt to report the threat at Nyanchwa police station in Kisii, authorities turned him away.
On March 22, 2024, assailants accosted Omtatah outside a court in Busia, pelting him with stones as he departed. Though his vehicle sustained damage, Omtatah escaped unharmed.
In the latest incident on April 3, 2024, at night, assailants raided Omtatah's rural home, injuring his wife after they failed locate him.
All these systemic attacks present a worrying trend given our dark history where progressive political and civic actors, and activists have faced assassinations, among other repressive actions.
KHRC believes these attacks are undoubtedly linked to Omtatah's activism, which involves defending human rights, challenging illegal government directives, and advocating for accountability. It is evident that influential people within the Kenya Kwanza administration are displeased with Omtatah's powerful actions.
An assault on Omtatah is an attack on our democratic, and civil rights and freedoms. It threatens the environment in which we fought so hard to have and shape our nation's political, legislative, social, and economic landscape.
Those orchestrating these attacks, likely state operatives, aim to silence activists and deter opposition to the government. However, their actions only bolster our determination to hold this regime accountable.
We demand that the Inspector-General of Police, Japheth Koome, ensure Omtatah's safety and that of all activists in the country.
Nairobi, Kenya—The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) is alarmed by the attacks on independent fiscal institutions, which seriously threaten democracy, accountability, and the rule of law in the country and the essence of our sovereignty.
The current regime has taken over from where the Jubilee administration left off. It is perpetrating egregious violations and political manipulations of independent fiscal institutions, outrightly disregarding the constitutional mandates of the offices of the Controller of Budget (CoB), Auditor General (OAG), Commission on Revenue Allocations (CRA) and the Salaries and Remuneration Commissions (SRC).
Lest we forget
The demand for independent regulatory and oversight institution offices in Kenya was, without a shadow of a doubt, in response to the rise of widespread authoritarian leadership, heightened corruption, and the mismanagement of public resources by the previous governments.
These independent institutions and offices are embedded in our Constitution. They are expected to enhance democracy and accountability by monitoring and overseeing government actions that have a bearing on public resources.
Establishing these institutions in the Constitution was meant to signal their importance and ensure they were not tinkered with for political expediency.
Why the attack
On numerous occasions, the independent fiscal institutions within their mandate have sounded an alarm of mismanagement of public monies and flaunting various public finance management laws by different government entities, including the Executive.
These range from a mockery of the budget process, which has seen payments made to non-existing projects at both national and counties, overpriced projects occasioning loss of public funds, abandonment of projects initiated by previous governments, budgeted corruption, reallocation of development expenditure to luxurious and non-essential items, limited spending and absorption of the development budgets, extravagant foreign and domestic travels by particularly members of the county assemblies, ballooned wage bill and reckless borrowing that has seen the country's public debt surpass the stipulated Sh10 trillion ceiling, among others.
As raised by the independent fiscal institutions, the above issues are of grave magnitude. They should be treated with the utmost seriousness by any concerned Kenyan and more so by the parliament and Executive, who are obligated to safeguard the rule of law.
Further, if unchecked, these issues will cause the country to plunge into bankruptcy and denial of essential services by the government to the taxpayers.
Systemic assaults
The Office of the Auditor General, a beacon of financial scrutiny, faces systemic assaults. There are attempts to dilute the office's independence through the amendment of the Public Audit Act (PAA). Further, the government-sponsored Public Audit (Amendment) Bill 2024 before parliament, if passed, will remove the Auditor-General as the head of the national audit office. This appears to be a subtle attempt to conceal the damming loss of public funds that the Auditor-General has been revealing through official reports or media statements.
The December 2023 abduction of Margaret Nyakang'o, the CoB, and her subsequent coerced journey to Mombasa reeked of intimidation tactics employed to stifle dissent and muzzle fiscal watchdogs. Before her arrest, Nyakang'o had exposed financial rot within this regime. While appearing before the National Dialogue Committee, the CoB questioned government taxation policy and revealed a budgeted corruption scheme. She said that state officers' salaries had been over budgeted to over Sh1.5 billion, demanding the relocation of the money. The matter fizzled out, and we highly doubt if the culpable officers faced disciplinary action.
Like the CoB, the office of the Auditor-General is being targeted for exposing the damning loss of public money. In January this year, the office's head, Nancy Gathungu, lifted the lid on the Sh67 billion loss of public funds through fake payments made to pensioners whose identity is also in question. Gathungu showed how top civil servants manning the scheme were, among others, using duplicate IDs to enroll fake claimants, occasioning the loss of taxpayers' money. No tangible action has been taken to bring the culprits to account. This matters because public funds were lost with no consequences.
Call to action
Independent institutions, such as the OAG, CoB, CRA, and SRC, are critical in ensuring the checks and balances necessary for a functioning democracy. The independent fiscal institutions serve as bulwarks against abuse of power, corruption, and impunity, and their autonomy must be respected and protected at all costs.
We demand that:
Uganda's Constitutional Court has upheld most provisions of the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023, placing LGBTQ+ individuals at increased risk of violence and discrimination.
On April 3, 2024, the court said the Act was constitutional but only nullified four sections—areas that do not adequately address the overarching human rights violations embedded within them.
This is deeply concerning.
The court's decision falls short of safeguarding the fundamental rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The law, in its entirety, perpetuates discrimination, stigma, and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, violating their rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and equality before the law.
Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, on May 29, 2023, signed the law based on public outcry and anecdotal evidence. His actions—and those of MPs who passed the law—undermine the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Human rights cannot be subject to popular opinion or emotional rhetoric; they must be protected and upheld without discrimination.
We know an appeal is being filed at the Supreme Court to stop this law. KHRC supports it and urges Uganda's apex court to declare the entire Act unconstitutional.
KHRC stands in solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community in Uganda and calls for an end to discrimination and violence against them.
The Kasigau Corridor REDD + Project in Kenya is a high-profile carbon offsetting project that claims to ‘avoid’ emissions by protecting forests. When ‘Ernst Wood’ (a pseudonym)[1] arrived at Kasigau, his task was clear: to evaluate whether the project, which is run by US-based company Wildlife Works Carbon (Wildlife Works), met the environmental and social criteria needed to maintain its ethical certifications.
Social and environmental auditors such as Ernst are rarely mentioned in the debate around forest-based offsetting schemes, yet the carbon credit market could not exist without them. That’s because many buyers of such carbon credits – often big polluters, such as fossil fuel companies and airlines – rely on ethical certifications as evidence that the offsetting projects on which these credits are based have real social and environmental benefits. Certificates give credibility to the impact claims that businesses such as Wildlife Works make about their forest protection or tree planting projects, and can boost the green credentials of their customers.
At the time of Ernst’s visit, Wildlife Works boasted not one but two certificates: the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCB), both issued and supervised by the Washington-DC-based organisation Verra. The VCS is, in theory, supposed to confirm whether offset schemes plant or save as many trees as they purport to do. The main promise of the more expansive and community-focused CCB is that offsetting projects carrying its label deliver positive socioeconomic outcomes, such as income generation opportunities for local people and greater gender equality.
Audits are the main tool used by carbon certification schemes like Verra to monitor the environmental, social, and human rights impacts of offsetting projects. Wildlife Works has long held up its CCB label as proof that its operations at Kasigau go well beyond basic social safeguards, by ‘empowering’ the local community – especially women – through jobs and various development initiatives, known as ‘co-benefits’. Many of its customers have repeated this claim, with Netflix going so far as to make and promote a short film about the Kasigau project. By emphasising how Wildlife Works supports women’s groups and employs female rangers – an occupation traditionally reserved for men – the film depicts Kasigau as an essentially feminist project that’s entirely beneficial for local people.
Even international development organisations, such as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), have held up Kasigau as a model of how to wed climate goals with community benefits.[2]
In 2023, an investigation into Kasigau by the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) showed that Ernst’s concerns were well founded. Drawing on interviews with over 30 employees and community members, both victims and witnesses, KHRC and SOMO documented multiple allegations of predatory men within Wildlife Works who had exploited positions of power to sexually assault, harass, and extort sex from female staff and mistreated vulnerable women in the wider community. According to multiple sources, the abuses had been going on for a decade.
Ernst was not the only auditor to review Kasigau while egregious abuses were taking place. Between 2013 and 2022, four US-based auditing firms sent teams to the project site, with each of them reportedly interviewing dozens of employees and community members on topics such as working conditions, rights, and community impacts (see table). None of them reported finding any evidence of sexual harassment or abuse.
Yet, as community members told KHRC and SOMO, it was an open secret among employees and the wider community that, in the words of one interviewee, women were “treated as sex objects” at Wildlife Works, and that the perpetrators got away with it by “intimidat[ing] everybody”.
Instead, the auditors’ findings were reassuring and flattering towards Wildlife Works’ culture and project management. They found that the project had “overwhelmingly … positive impacts to the local communities”,[6] was “highly unlikely to result in any net negative impacts on local stakeholders”,[7] and was committed to “equal opportunity employment”.[8] “In conversations with staff,” one audit report noted, “it was learned that no negative comments or grievances were ever received.”[9]
The collective failure of these auditors is shocking but not surprising. This is because the auditing system – a largely unregulated web of private companies that compete for contracts from offset project developers – is set up in such a way that it’s nearly impossible for auditors to meaningfully investigate and report on abuses. What emerges as a result is a ‘paper reality’ that is at best incomplete, and at worst a fiction, replete with misleading reassurances around the wellbeing of some of the world’s most marginalised communities.
The reasons the auditing system failed so spectacularly at Kasigau appear inherent in the system. These include: the power imbalance between local people (both employees and other members of communities) and carbon project developers; the limitations placed on auditors, restricting the scope of their reviews; the auditors’ bias in favour of the project developers who are their clients; and the conflict of interest in the relationship between auditors and project developers. We consider each of these reasons in turn below.
SOMO wrote to the auditing companies listed in the table above. Only SCS Global responded, telling us that its assessment team had not heard or received any “allegations about sexual harassment or assault”.[10]
Ernst’s suspicion that things were not as they seemed was triggered by his discussions and informal chats with Wildlife Works’ local staff. During these conversations, Ernst heard disturbing stories of what women at the company were put through by more senior male colleagues. For example, he learned about an incident where a female employee asked for an advance on her salary and was told that “she had to ‘earn it’ by providing sexual favours”. In another incident, a woman had allegedly been “pressured repeatedly to sleep with a more senior colleague”.
Ernst said he had tried, but failed, to get interviewees to speak about these and other problems on the record, but that staff members and especially junior staff seemed unable to speak freely. I had the impression that they had been told what to tell us and were afraid to defy these instructions. While I tried to convince them that they could share problems with me, I left those interviews feeling they were afraid to open up.
Project employees were not the only group Ernst believed to be holding back during interviews. Community members, he explained, “who benefit from project carbon revenues are less likely to share [problems], as doing so may risk the continuation of project benefits”.
As a result of these power asymmetries, and the apparent lack of trust in the audit process on the part of Ernst’s interviewees, none of his concerns made it into his audit report.
The barriers Ernst ran into during his audit shine a light on how the power imbalance between offset project developers, on the one hand, and their staff and local communities, on the other, shapes audit outcomes. In theory, the interviews used to monitor the social impacts of an offsetting project are more straightforward than the messy and discredited methods used to calculate carbon emission reductions. But in practice, local employees and communities have good reasons to keep concerns to themselves.
Staff might, for example, have been told by their boss what to tell (or not tell) the auditors, as Ernst suspected had happened at Kasigau. In other cases, auditors might conduct interviews accompanied by a manager from the project developer. Ernst, based on his experiences, believes this to be “common practice”, despite the obvious limiting effect that such managerial presence can have on the ability of staff to speak openly about problems.
As Ernst also noted, audits can be manipulated, particularly if the verification system limits the scope of inquiry. SCS Global appears to agree, telling SOMO: “[A]dequate consultation with communities may require numerous engagements over a lengthier period of time than has sometimes been afforded to the validation and verification body. Indeed, some of our requests for added time are met with great resistance.”
The power asymmetries between companies like Wildlife Works and communities, then, combine with the limitations the system places on auditors, in ways that fundamentally disadvantage workers and communities. Companies have a responsibility and, increasingly, a legal obligation, to account for and report on the impact of their activities on people and the environment. While some see social and environmental audits as a tool to deliver on this responsibility, the flaws of such processes have been repeatedly exposed by civil society organisations.
In 2020, one or more community members living around Kasigau chose to remain anonymous when they tried to report concerns to S&A Carbon, which audited Kasigau that year. These concerns related to the allegedly “unfair hiring practices” of Wildlife Works’ Human Resources Department. According to S&A’s audit report, the written complaint called for the “removal” of Wildlife Works’ HR Manager at Kasigau and for people “to be treated with respect and dignity”.[11] Although the audit report is vague on the exact content of the complaint, it suggests it also raised unfair termination practices as an issue.[12]
More concerningly, S&A accepted, seemingly without any attempt at verification, Wildlife Works’ assertion that the complaint was “based in personal conflict between the individual(s) and the project and that therefore the discrimination accusations have no merit”.[13] The auditors reported that Wildlife Works “believes they know the identity or at least the family who raised the comment” and “is confident that the letter originated from [location redacted by SOMO]”.[14] To respond to the issue, the auditors go on to explain, Wildlife Works planned to hold community meetings in the location it assumed the grievance stemmed from. [15]
One obvious problem with S&A’s handling of this complaint is how its apparent bias towards Wildlife Works’ version of events led it to largely disregard the concerns of one or more community members. Equally troubling is how S&A chose to include in its public report a presumed characteristic of the anonymous complainant(s) – the name of their location – that could very well lead to identification. It is not difficult to see how S&A’s handling of this complaint could have a chilling effect on employees or other members of the community, who might think twice before reporting concerns.
One year later, Aster Global visited Kasigau for Wildlife Works’ 2021 audit. The auditors, who were aware of the anonymous complaint filed the previous year, should have had additional cause for concern around Wildlife Works’ hiring and termination practices. Three similar complaints had been made through Wildlife Works’ grievance system.[16] Yet despite this additional evidence of problems related to human resources practices, Aster Global’s audit report does not mention the new complaints, and there is no evidence the auditors investigated the issues. [17]
The apparent failure to investigate such signals about potential problems more deeply may help explain why a decade of auditing failed to uncover any of the abuses that KHRC and SOMO have exposed.
This seeming tendency of auditors to give clients the benefit of the doubt is no anomaly in the carbon offsetting world. Recent research by the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, has shown such auditors’ bias to be pervasive in the industry. The Berkeley researchers reviewed project descriptions and audit reports on Kasigau and 17 other forest-based offsetting projects. They found that safeguarding compliance appears to be “systematically rubber-stamped despite evidence of noncompliance”.[18]
“Time and again,” the Berkeley researchers explain, “projects received positive verifications despite woefully inadequate consultation, evidence of contested land claims, and even violent evictions.” Auditors accept problematic community engagement practices and consistently give their clients “the benefit of the doubt”, “while doing minimal due diligence” on their claims.
The commercial relationships between auditors and the developers that run carbon offsetting projects have a profound impact on how auditors engage with employees and communities, and interpret the testimonies given to them. Like offsetting more broadly, auditing is a profit-driven industry, where firms compete for contracts from companies such as Wildlife Works. Auditors receive payment for their services from the very same company whose behaviour and impacts they are supposed to scrutinise.
As an auditor, asking tough questions on community relations, and digging deeper than your rivals on issues like working conditions, is therefore unlikely to make you popular with a clientele whose ability to sell credits hinges on having positive outcomes highlighted by their audit reports. This creates an inherent conflict of interest at the heart of the audit system, which can undermine the confidence that local staff and community members have in the auditors in whom they are expected to confide.
This does not mean that auditors deliberately ignore problems, but it presents them with an incentive to give clients the benefit of the doubt. As Ernst explained, the market reality imposes pressures on auditors that “limit the level of investigation” they can apply.
Sexual harassment and abuse, and a culture of fear created by a HR manager, were a reality at Kasigau. Audit firms repeatedly failed to identify or report on this reality. These firms operate within a system and to a standard that made it seem impossible for at least one auditor to raise their serious concerns about women’s safety at Kasigau.
Ernst Wood spoke to KHRC and SOMO because he worries that the people who end up paying the price for the structural shortcomings of the auditing system are those who are often already marginalised. They want he wants to see the damage done by the system repaired.
Individuals like Ernst play a critical role in bringing the truth to light, but it is not easy for them to do so. This is because both the carbon offsetting industry and the carbon certification industry are exactly that: industries, governed by competitive pressures, profit objectives, and private interests.
An irreconcilable and dangerous tension exists between such business pressures, on the one hand, and the rights of communities and workers on the other. And this means that even auditors such as Ernst, who are willing to ask tough questions, lack the tools and means to protect and support communities.
SOMO contacted Aster Global Solutions, SCS Global and S&A Carbon for comments on the sexual harassment and abuse at Kasigau and their failure to identify it. Only SCS Global responded.
SCS Global said:
We stand behind the audit procedures implemented during this assessment. SCS GHG audits are conducted following standard auditing operating procedures in accordance with the rules and requirements of our International Standards Organization (ISO) accreditation under the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB). Above all, SCS employed the standard of care of Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) at the time.
As a benefit corporation, SCS is fully committed to driving positive change toward greater governmental and corporate environmental and ethical responsibility. We share your interest in preventing human rights abuses around the world.
In August 2023, SOMO raised the issue of deliberate action to mislead validation and verification bodies in a letter to Wildlife Works. We informed the company:
SOMO received testimony that, prior to auditors coming to inspect the project, Wildlife Works has instructed or coached staff on how to behave and respond. This coaching appeared to be intended to provide a partial, and therefore misleading, picture of the work conditions to the social auditors.
Wildlife Works did not respond to us on this issue.
[1] We refer to this person as 'Ernst Wood’ to protect their anonymity.
[2] Since the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) released their report on Kasigau (Offsetting Human Rights, 2023, www.somo.nl/offsetting-human-rights), UNEP has added a disclaimer to its article on Kasigau, stating that it doesn’t officially endorse individual projects; yet the article continues to uncritically repeat Wildlife Works’ claims about Kasigau’s impacts.
[3] SOMO interviewed Ernst between 10 and 20 March 2024 by phone. This article includes quotes from these conversations, as well as quotes from interviews done with Ernst in 2023 for the KHRC and SOMO report, Offsetting Human Rights.
[4] Wildlife Works Statement, Updates from the Kasigau Project, November 20, 2023, https://www.wildlifeworks.com/post/update-on-kasigau
[5] The division of Environmental Services that used to provide forestry carbon audits spun off in 2019 when their principal employees purchased this division and began operations as Aster Global https://www.asterglobal.com/about-us/
[6] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p. 54 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[7] Environmental Services Inc, Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance Project Annual Verification Report, 2013, p. 33 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=41997&IDKEY=j0e98hfalksuf098fnsdalfkjfoijmn4309JLKJFjlaksjfla9857913863
[8] SCS Global Services, Final CCBA Project Verification Report, 2015, p. 24, https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=42218&IDKEY=9kjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909958218622
[9] Environmental Services Inc, Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance Project Annual Verification Report, 2013, p. 18
[10] See ‘Research note’ below.
[11] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p. 16, 81-85 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[12] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p. 83-85 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[13] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p.82 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[14] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p.82-83 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[15] S&A Carbon, Verification report for the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project phase II – the
community ranches, 2020, p.83 https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=47114&IDKEY=kkjalskjf098234kj28098sfkjlf098098kl32lasjdflkj909j64970206
[16] This audit required the Aster Global auditors to review the anonymous complaint raised earlier. See Aster Global Environmental Solutions, The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project Phase II – The Community Ranches, 2021, p. 51-52, https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=59529&IDKEY=f0e98hfalksuf098fnsdalfkjfoijmn4309JLKJFjlaksjfla9k82090491. A 2021 accuracy review by Verra of an audit by Aster Global Environmental Services of the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project Phase II reveals (p.4) that of all concerns filed through the Wildlife Works grievance system in the previous year, three “were identified as rising to the level of potential dispute between the project and communities or other stakeholders, with these three involving concern over hiring or termination practices”. According to Verra’s report, which was still ‘pending’ at the time of writing, “[t]he short-term resolution identified for these [concerns] was for the community relation and HR department to organize HR employment and working procedures in the complainant's’ [sic]communities after the Covid pandemic abates”. Aster Global’s audit report does not give any details around the nature of the concerns raised through Wildlife Works’ grievance system. Aster Global Environmental Solutions, The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project Phase II – The Community Ranches, 2021, p. 17, https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=59529&IDKEY=f0e98hfalksuf098fnsdalfkjfoijmn4309JLKJFjlaksjfla9k82090491
[17]Aster Global Environmental Solutions, The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project Phase II – The Community Ranches, 2021, p. 17. https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/ProjectDoc/Project_ViewFile.asp?FileID=59528&IDKEY=f097809fdslkjf09rndasfufd098asodfjlkduf09nm23mrn87m82089112
[18] ‘Quality Assessment of REDD+ Carbon Credit Projects’ (2023) by Berkeley Carbon Trading Project (2023), p. 177- 179.
For decades, Kakuzi PLC's iron fist has been crushing the hopes of generations fighting for their birthright—land.
Kakuzi is a multinational conglomerate specializing in agricultural produce and controls 32,900 acres of land in Murang'a, a county 65 kilometers northeast of Nairobi.
Organized communities determined to end historical injustices are challenging Kakuzi’s hold over this vast land.
The National Lands Commission’s (NLC) factfinding mission on March 14, 2024, brought these communities’ sheer courage to the fore.
With a wealth of historical evidence supporting their claim to the land, the communities provided testimonies detailing the brutal displacement they endured from their ancestral homes, orchestrated over the years under cover of darkness by guards employed by Kakuzi.
NLC toured the scenes of these historical human rights violations and interviewed victims.
On September 28, 2018, NLC convened its inaugural public hearing in Thika, prompted by petitions from locals seeking a return to their ancestral land. The Ndula Resource Center and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) represented the communities. During the meeting, NLC was implored to visit the extensive land under Kakuzi's control. However, this visit never materialized.
Five years and five months later, in February 2024, another hearing took place in Nairobi, with more petitions from locals urging NLC to act fast and end years of landlessness. Finally, the visit took place on March 14.
Between 1902 and 1966, Kakuzi—formerly known as Kakuzi Fibreland Limited—amassed extensive land holdings acquired from former British settlers in Kenya. These settlers had obtained land primarily through legal mechanisms and forceful dispossession during the colonial era.
The British colonial government implemented laws such as the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1902 and the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915, which allowed for the alienation of vast tracts of fertile land from indigenous communities to European settlers.
Additionally, the British employed tactics such as coercion, fraud, and violent displacement to seize land from local communities, exacerbating the injustice and dispossession experienced by the Kenyan people.
This is the backdrop against which Kakuzi came to possess extensive land holdings in Murang'a. This action left the local population stranded in squatter camps within Kakuzi's territory, with many compelled to toil on its sisal plantations under conditions reminiscent of slavery.
In the early 1960s, Kakuzi relinquished the parcels to the Kenyan government and secured a 999-year lease in 1966. However, these communities were not resettled on their land. Today, descendants of the original farming communities rely on waged labor on Kakuzi farms and endure harsh living conditions.
Over the years, communities living on and adjacent to the Kakuzi estate have faced a myriad of serious human rights abuses, including alleged killings, assaults and rapes by Kakuzi guards. In June 2019, some 85 claimants moved to the British courts to sue Kakuzi's parent company, Camellia PLC, based in the UK, for these violations. UK-based law firm Leigh Day, working closely with KHRC and Ndula Resource Centre represented them.
In the wake of this legal proceeding and subsequent revelations of alleged sexual violence by Kakuzi guards, UK supermarket chains Tesco, Lidl, and Sainsbury's suspended their contracts with Kakuzi.
Kakuzi's Makuyu avocado plantation had its Rainforest Alliance certification revoked, preventing the company from exporting its produce. As a result, according to its financial reports, the company experienced a significant setback in its multimillion profits, which plummeted by 52.88 per cent to Sh137.2 million.
Consequently, Camellia PLC reached an out-of-court settlement with the claimants, paying Sh696 million to victims of alleged violence and rape, alongside making remedial investments in the local Murang'a community. Kakuzi committed to establishing and executing an operational-level grievance mechanism to facilitate the fair and prompt resolution of any other allegations of human rights abuses.
Yet, one challenge persisted: access to ancestral land, which Kakuzi has adamantly refused to surrender, perpetuating entrenched historical injustices connected to colonization and economic exploitation.
This is the reason behind NLC conducting hearings and visiting Murang'a on March 14, accompanied by a representative from the office of the Attorney-General (AG), the Ministry of Lands, the Murang'a county government, victims of historical land injustices, and officials from Ndula Resource Centre and KHRC.
NLC is responsible for hearing and adjudicating historical land claims. The AG serves as the government's principal legal advisor. Since the land is public, Murang'a County holds it in trust for the people it represents. The Ministry of Land conducts surveys, demarcates boundaries, and issues title deeds, a critical process should NLC order Kakuzi to return the land for resettling squatters and for public utilities. Ndula Resource Centre and KHRC act as the victims’ representatives and continue to hold Kakuzi accountable for human rights violations.
During the factfinding mission, NLC observed firsthand how descendants of the original farming communities live on their land as squatters under the whims of Kakuzi. The company condemned them to rocky, hilly, and infertile terrain. Others were compelled into squatter settlements and labour camps, while a significant number remained internally displaced persons both within and outside the jurisdiction of Kakuzi.
The parcels currently occupied by Kakuzi and in contention are LR10731 and LR11674. Out of 32,000 acres Kakuzi controls, the communities, totaling about 6,200 individuals, demand around 16,000 acres—12,000 from LR10731 and the remainder from LR11674.
On March 14, NLC visited the following land parcels: LR10731/3, LR10731/4, and LR10731/5. Other locations included Ithanga Phase Five, Kakuzi Primary School, Kasioni Dam, Miembeni, Kinyangi, and Kakuzi's macadamia factory and blueberry greenhouses.
In parcel 10731/3, spanning 700 acres, NLC learned that in 1989, Kakuzi gifted the land to its then-general manager, David John Munyae. However, it was revealed to NLC that this land was initially intended for settling squatters.
Kakuzi stated that, in 1970, it donated 250 acres in Ithanga Phase Five to settle 50 squatters. However, NLC discovered that Kakuzi had refused to relinquish the master title deed under LR10731. This prevented the community from processing their individual title deeds, denying them land ownership rights. This mirrored the predicament of Kakuzi Primary School, founded in 1958 and occupying 12 acres, and Kinyangi Primary School, established in 1949 and situated on 12 acres.
The plight extended beyond a lack of title deed for Kakuzi Primary School. Students here endure a daily trek of 16 kilometers between home and school. Why? When these students' parents resided near the school, Kakuzi reportedly evicted them, compelling them to settle in Kakuzi Hills, eight kilometers away. To reach the school, students must traverse forests and navigate fields infested with snakes and other hazardous wildlife.
In Kinyangi, public institutions on a 50-acre administrative land lack title deeds. These include a chief’s office, a hospital, and a Ministry of Transport and Public Works site. Additionally, the Kinyangi Trading Center, covering five acres; the Kinyangi market, also under five acres; and three churches totaling 15 acres, similarly lack title deeds. How a private company donated land to government institutions and won’t release title deeds to them remains most baffling.
Areas yet to be visited under LR10731 include Kituamba-Kaloleni, where Kakuzi allegedly orchestrated a brutal eviction in December 1989, torching houses, maiming people, and destroying crops.
Also awaiting inspection are the Kituamba police station, erected in 1948, the Kituamba water supply station, constructed in 1976, and the New Nginye Dam—hailed as one of the largest in East and Central Africa—claimed by the Kaloleni and Kinyangi communities.
Should NLC proceed to Kakuzi Hills, the commission will witness firsthand how communities inhabit condemned land. Residents reported that Kakuzi coerced them onto the hills following their eviction from more fertile land downslope.
In Kitito, Kitito Boys' and Girls' Secondary Schools, established in 1968, lack title deeds for the 25 acres of land they occupy. Similarly, Kitito Primary School, built in 1932 and covering 12 acres, also lacks a title deed. On September 2, 2016, these schools gained attention when another instance of violence by Kakuzi guards was captured on camera. Pupils protesting an alleged land-grabbing attempt on their school grounds were met with violence from Kakuzi guards, with police officers also involved. Video footage showed officers charging at children and assaulting journalists.
The most recent violent evictions occurred in Milimani-Kakuzi Hills, reportedly under the supervision of former Kakuzi general manager David John Munyae. When the NLC visits, it will witness the aftermath of the July 1999 brutality, which left Gaichanjiru village in ruins.
Further, Kakuzi is accused of restricting public access to rural road number 2315.
In 2019, the NLC ordered that Kakuzi's land leases not be renewed until all grievances related to historical land injustices are resolved. The NLC said current leases should revert to 99 years from 999. However, the Environment and Lands Court in Nairobi overturned this order last year.
https://youtu.be/J7mvQmyYujA
KHRC and Ndula Resource Center urge NLC to accelerate its hearings to resolve the longstanding historical land injustices suffered by Murang’a communities. Additionally, both organizations demand that Kakuzi resettles all squatters and surrenders the master title deed to enable communities to process their title deeds. We also call for the unfettered and unconditional opening of all public roads that remain closed by Kakuzi.