NATIONAL COHESION AND INTEGRATION COMMISSION GROUND SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES AND HATE SPEECH REGULATIONS IN POLITICAL RALLIES

EUNICE WAMBUI KABIRU; FELIX KIRUTHU

doi:10.61426/rjssh.v7i1.490

EUNICE WAMBUI KABIRU Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya
FELIX KIRUTHU, PhD Lecturer, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.61426/rjssh.v7i1.490

Keywords: Ground Surveillance, National Cohesion, Hate Speech

Abstract

Hate speech remains a serious challenge to democratic governance, social cohesion, and the rule of law, particularly in ethnically diverse societies such as Kenya. Although the National Cohesion and Integration Commission was established under the National Cohesion and Integration Act (2008) to regulate hate speech and promote national unity, enforcement outcomes have remained inconsistent, especially during political rallies. This study examined the influence of ground surveillance techniques employed by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission in regulating hate speech during political rallies in Nairobi City County, Kenya. The study was anchored on Social Responsibility Theory and Institutional Theory, which provided a framework for understanding the ethical regulation of communication and institutional enforcement dynamics. A descriptive research design was adopted. The study targeted key officials from the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Communications Authority of Kenya, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and experts in peace and conflict resolution. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS Version 26 through descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The findings revealed that ground surveillance techniques had a statistically significant positive influence on the implementation of hate speech regulation during political rallies. Ground surveillance was found to be a strong predictor of effective hate speech regulation, contributing to improved evidence collection, increased enforcement effectiveness, and strengthened regulatory outcomes. The study concluded that ground surveillance is a critical investigative tool in regulating hate speech during political rallies and recommends strengthening institutional capacity, technological support, and inter-agency coordination to enhance surveillance effectiveness.

Author Biographies

EUNICE WAMBUI KABIRU, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya

Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya

(0009-0009-6416-0111)

FELIX KIRUTHU, PhD, Lecturer, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya

Lecturer, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Kenyatta University, Kenya

References

Ariel, B., & Partridge, H. (2022). Police body-worn cameras and accountability: Evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental studies. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(2), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12587

Bosire, C. N. (2019). Regulating hate speech in new democracies: The case of Kenya. African Human Rights Law Journal, 19(1), 1–25.

Brayne, S. (2021). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press.

Christians, C. G., & Fackler, P. M. (2014). Ethics for public communication: Defining moments in media history. Oxford University Press.

Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, No. 5 of 2018 (Kenya).

Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., & Braman, D. (2021). Whose eyes are you going to believe? Visual evidence and cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 45(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000445

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). 2019 Kenya population and housing census volume I: Population by county and sub-county. KNBS.

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., Stoltz, M., Goodier, M., Eggins, E., & Mazerolle, L. (2020). Body-worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), e1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1112

Maguire, E. R., & Oakley, M. T. (2020). Policing protests and public assemblies. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041633

Maina, G. (2020). Hate speech and freedom of expression in Kenya: The legal and institutional framework. African Human Rights Law Journal, 20(2), 512–536.

Maskaly, J., Donner, C., Jennings, W. G., Ariel, B., & Sutherland, A. (2020). The effects of body-worn cameras on police and citizen outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101637

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2009). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Acts Press.

National Cohesion and Integration Act, No. 12 of 2008 (Kenya).

National Cohesion and Integration Commission. (2021). Annual report 2021. NCIC.

Newham, G., & Faull, A. (2020). Public order policing and protest management in South Africa: Reform, challenges and accountability. Policing and Society, 30(8), 944–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1702100

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

Ogola, G. (2021). Social media, politics and ethnic polarization in Kenya. African Journalism Studies, 42(3), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2021.1951234

Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Vieweg, S. (2018). Social data: Biases, methodological pitfalls, and ethical boundaries. Frontiers in Big Data, 1, 13.

Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press. University of Illinois Press.

Stott, C., West, O., & Harrison, M. (2020). A turning point? The policing of mass gatherings and public order. Policing and Society, 30(4), 1–17.

Vasist, P. N., Borah, P., & Hwang, J. (2023). The polarizing impact of political disinformation and hate speech. Frontiers in Communication, 8, Article 1123456.