The Mombasa Republican Council

Report on the the coverage of MRC phenomenon for the MCK

 

By Joe Kadhi, Lecturer, Journalism,

United States International University,

Nairobi, 21st July, 2012

 

Introduction

Nothing, of late, has challenged journalism in Kenya more than the coverage of the mysterious Mombasa Republican Council. Engaging in conveyor-belt reportorial presentation of stories journalists have only been writing about utterances of the organisation’s leaders threatening to secede from Kenya and the rebuttals from national leaders expressing their views on how to deal with the situation.

An in-depth exposé telling the real story that would answer a number of questions in Kenyans’ minds about the organisation has yet to be written. What is the origin of the shadowy organisation calling itself MRC? Who finances it and for what purposes? Is it a political party or a tribal organisation? Are its demands genuine or are they a concoction of politicians out to win the next general elections?

All the questions and many more are yet to be answered by journalists covering MRC stories. Reporting MRC, and indeed many other important current events, through exposés or simply by engaging in interpretative coverage is a serious professional as well as ethical challenge to Kenyan journalists. Due to its controversial nature the coverage of the MRC is, for all practical purposes, the coverage of conflict. Ethically, journalists in Kenya are required to follow very well defined principles of concerning conflict. These principles gives three specific instructions journalists in Kenya have to observe.

Called “Covering Ethnic, Religious and Sectarian Conflict” the ethical principle says news, views or comments on ethnic, religious or sectarian dispute should be published or broadcast after proper verification of facts and presented with due caution and restraint in a manner which is conducive to the creation of an atmosphere congenial to national harmony, amity and peace. Then it requires provocative and alarming headlines to be avoided. And lastly it suggest news reports or commentaries should not be written or broadcast in a manner likely to inflame the passions, aggravate the tension or accentuate the strained relations between the communities concerned. It further suggests articles or broadcasts with the potential to exacerbate communal trouble should be avoided.

While covering conflict or any other controversial story, journalists in Kenya are extremely lucky to be protected by the supreme law of the land which creates an environment so conducive to the free practice of journalism that the vibrancy of the Kenyan fourth estate is quite conspicuous to any visitor. Article 33 of the Constitution, for example, clearly says every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

By using this part of the Constitution journalists have actually allowed MRC leaders to say virtually everything they have wanted to about their amorphous organisation. While doing so, however, journalists ought to know that the same part of the Constitution also says the right to freedom of expression does not extend to  propaganda for war; incitement to violence;  hate speech; or  advocacy of hatred that  constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others or incitement to cause harm; or  is based on any ground of discrimination specified or contemplated in Article 27 (4) which says  the State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.

Looking at that provision of the law, journalists in Kenya should realise that they have quite a free hand in covering the MRC though they are expected to be very careful in making sure the derogatory statements by the organisation’s leaders, which at time come close to incitement and could therefore cause harm, are properly doctored professionally. The Constitution also says in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, every person shall respect the rights and reputation of others.

Article 34 of the Constitution says freedom and independence of electronic, print and all other types of media is guaranteed, but does not extend to any expression specified in Article 33 (2) discussed above. Be that as it may, the supreme law says the State shall not exercise control over or interfere with any person engaged in broadcasting, the production or circulation of any publication or the dissemination of information by any medium; or penalise any person for any opinion or view or the content of any broadcast, publication or dissemination.

Because of this provision a number of FM stations down at the Coast have given a lot or freedom to the so-called leaders of the MRC mainly because the Constitution also says broadcasting and other electronic media have freedom of establishment, subject only to licensing procedures that are necessary to regulate the airwaves and other forms of signal distribution; and are independent of control by government, political interests or commercial interests. By examining this particular section of the Constitution the ownership of a number of FM station at the Coast could be said to be contravening the law as a number of them actually belong to politicians and could therefore not be categorized as independent of political interest.

Today State-owned media are much freer to professionally select stories as they please because the Constitution gives them the liberty to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications and be impartial; and afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions. Despite this freedom however there has not been any noticeable in-depth reporting by the State-media about of the MRC.

The matter is made worse by the existence of Article 35 of the Constitution which gives journalists, like all other citizens, the right of access to information held by the State; and information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. For the first time in history the Constitution allows journalists to engage in investigative exercise of their profession knowing very well the supreme law protects the people’s right to know. Despite all this journalists have not made use of the Constitution to engage in any meaningful investigation about the MRC. At the time of writing this report there were quite a number of pertinent questions about MRC that still remained mysterious and therefore unanswered.

Back in my days as the Daily Nation’s Managing Editor my efforts to expose police brutality faced a tough personal reprimand from President Daniel arap Moi himself demanding to kill complete stories including the coverage of the Saba Saba in 1990 when a number of people were killed in Nairobi. On that day I had to defy orders from the President to let Kenyans know about riots that followed peaceful demonstrations for multi-party democracy in their own capital. I witnessed a lot of brutality during the demonstrations in the city but when I decided to publish it, I was condemned. So I deliberately published to be damned! Today journalists don’t have to go through this professional trauma as they have all the freedom to publish the truth about almost any subject of their choice including the MRC.

Because of the freedom given by the Constitution, journalists are free to cover the MRC issues from many angles which are professionally stipulated in the art of news reporting. A professional examination of the coverage of MRC, therefore, requires looking at three types of reporting: Reportorial conveyor-belt presentation of stories; Interpretative presentation of stories and Commentaries and editorialized presentation of stories.

Reportorial presentation of MRC stories

The majority of MRC stories are reportorial presentations of utterances by Kenyan leaders condemning MRC, or pledging to work with the group, or MRC leaders explaining their position. One such story was published by the Sunday Nation on February 5^th 2012, when the paper claimed to have “unmasked” MRC. The paper had a front page story warning that the Government was staring at a major security threat over the rise of MRC. It also cautioned that despite the Government banning the group it had refused to go. The paper talked of anxiety gripping upcountry people as reports warned the outlawed group advocated split with Kenya and that it was gaining popularity among indigenous people including MPs.

The only effort by the paper to demystify MRC was shown when it revealed the name of its leader as   ex-policeman, Omar Suleiman Mwamnwanzi who is said to be the Chairman of the Governing Council. In the same story the Sunday Nation quoted Omar Hassan, a former Commissioner of KNCHR and a highly respected personality from the Coast region, calling for one nation. Though the story was well displayed in the centre spread, it begged more questions about the MRC than it provided answers. It said the State appeared to be without a solution and seemed to be at a loss on how to handle MRC. It also talked of a violent disruption of the group’s meeting at Shika Adabu followed by a meeting between the Coast PC, Earnest Munyi, and the group as the late Saitoti condemned calls for secession.  The interpretative journalism displayed by the paper appeared to paint a hopeless picture.

At about the same time The Standard published reportorial stories on MRC which quoted Kenyan leaders saying a number of things about the MRC. Their utterances however showed differences between them on how to deal with the illegal organisation. The story highlighted differences between President Mwai Kibaki, who was saying the Government would not tolerate separatists and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who was calling for dialogue with MRC as Deputy Prime Minister, Musalia Mudavadi, was calling for a motion in Parliament to establish dialogue with MRC. Needless to say this story created more cobwebs in the minds of Kenyans about the MRC. Kenyan leaders did not even see eye to eye on how to deal with the prohibited organisation.

The MRC story has also been used a number of times by the FM stations. Capital FM station, for example, quoted Mwai Kibaki in an April 24^th broadcast in which   the station claimed the President had for the first time spoken out strongly against the outlawed Mombasa Republican Council (MRC) and told the illegal group to forget about secession of the coastal region from Kenya. Kibaki is painted by the media as a man who regards MRC followers as enemies of Kenya. On that same day the station reported the death of a MRC man killed by a stone thrown by a rioter in Mombasa after police blocked members of the outlawed group from entering a court house.

According to the story riot police fired teargas to stop more than 100 members from reaching the court to hear a case in which they were challenging the ban on their group. In general the media have always reported confrontation between the police and the MRC without giving any satisfactory explanations about the real causes of the riots and confrontations.  Engaging in reportorial presentation of the MRC stories journalists have concentrated in quoting government sources. On June 10^th 2012, for example, The People newspaper, quoted the NSIS Director, Michael Gichangi , saying that the Government was aware of secret relationship between politicians and illegal organisations such as the MRC and that the intelligence service was watching keenly and declared the war on MRC was on .

The paper also quoted the NSIS boss warning MPs who began embracing MRC and added that the new found relationship posed a serious threat to peace and national security ahead of the polls. On June 14^th The Star quoted Coast clerics telling voters to reject illegal groups including the MRC. The story quoted the Coast Interfaith Council of Clerics urging the people not to boycott elections but it also quoted Coast Supkem Chairman, Shariff  Mohdhar, warning religious leaders against  taking political stands. Used big in the inside pages the story was quite punchy!

The People also had a similar story on the same date when it quoted clerics urging the Coast people not to boycott election as demanded by MRC. It also quoted the Supkem Coast boss Mohdhar criticising the government for not taking steps against leaders who preached hatred. Though used in the inside pages the story was quite punchy too.

Interpretative reporting of the MRC stories 

Like the reporting of all other stories in Kenya that of MRC fell short of professional interpretative handling .This requires a thorough knowledge of both the topic and the methodology of investigative journalism. Interpretative reporting leads to a superior presentation of stories which are based on the ability to investigate and a thorough understanding of the topic. A good example of interpretative reporting could be the call by MRC to boycott elections. Reportorial conveyor-belt presentation would quote subjects speaking for or against the call .Interpretative reporting would tell readers a lot more such as who would really benefit from the boycott; what does the law say about the right to vote; how the MRC real goals would be achieved by not participating in elections and what the MRC secret plans are to enforce election boycott?

Throughout the coverage of MRC issues journalists have shown very  limited knowledge of  the clandestine organisation .Lack of thorough investigative skills has led to the presentation of article that tell very little inside stories about the MRC. A very impressive academic research on MRC has been done by Paul Goldsmith; but reporters have shown very little inclination to use the academic report, yet they have not come up their own in-depth analysis of the organisation.

The Goldsmith report shows the issues fuelling MRC activism; the Kaya Bomba raiders and human rights abuses; the Mombasa Republican Council agenda and the opportunities for engaging the MRC. In my view, journalists could perform a much better job by making proper use of the good old 5ws and H. Used properly this could play the professional trick.  For example, everyone seems to know WHAT the MRC is: an illegal organisation banned in 2008 but; WHAT are its secrets?  WHAT are its sources of funds? WHAT external forces back it? WHAT are the possible outcomes of the MRC?

Who are really behind it? Goldsmith tells us that the Swahili, Arab, and Miji Kenda segments of the indigenous coast population are the people WHO are members on MRC but; WHO can be credited with the originality of MRC; WHO are the Kenyan politicians secretly backing it? WHO are totally opposed to it and ready to go to war? WHO has a solution to the entire problem?

When was it really established? Goldsmith also tells us that the events that were precipitated by the Kaya Bombo raiders in 1997 constitute the time WHEN the MRC phenomenon come into existence but; WHEN did the real problem start? WHEN did the Coastal people start feeling marginalized? WHEN did politicians decide to use it as a stepping stone to get re-elected or gain higher offices? WHEN is the problem likely to be solved?

Where is the MRC really strong? Though it is  believed that it is in the coastal counties of Kwale, Kilifi, Malindi, Taita-Taveta, and Tana River WHERE  the MRC is spread ; WHERE in these regions is it most popular? WHERE in the region is it least popular? WHERE do its leaders secretly meet? WHERE, outside Kenya, does it get its support from?

Whereas many believe that historical injustices are the reasons WHY Mombasa Republican Council was established; WHY has the MRC suddenly become current? WHY has the problem become so serious now? WHY are leaders divided on the issue? WHY has MRC united people? WHY do MRC leader claim it is not a political party?

Goldsmith also believes efforts to secure coastal autonomy  which represent a regionally and historically specific type of sovereignty pursued by mwambao activists  could explain HOW  MRC was formed but HOW is the MRC really organised?; HOW  are its members recruited? HOW is its propaganda spread? HOW does the Government intend to deal with it? HOW difficult is the effort to establish dialogue?

Answering these pertinent questions through investigative journalism during the reporting stage and presenting the stories in an interpretative manner during the writing stage, in my opinion, would go a long way towards demystifying the Mombasa Republican Council. The watchdog role of the fourth estate has been seriously neglected in both the reporting and writing of the MRC stories.

Commentaries on MRC

The Standard Digital of 14^th June had a commentary By Dann Mwangi saying:  In the recent past, the outlawed Mombasa Republic Council (MRC) has been making secessionists demands that are not founded on law, facts and history.  Inasmuch as they have been invoking a frivolous and outdated colonial agreement that the Coast Province no longer belongs to Kenya, this is not true. They continue to abuse our territorial integrity and national sovereignty and this must not be tolerated by the Government. In a nutshell Mwangi is saying: 1.MRC is abusing our territorial integrity 2. Do not tolerate it.

The Daily Nation sounded a warning on June 12^th when the paper had a commentary by Jackson Mwalulu saying: MRC insists it’s pursuing a just cause, top of which is Coast people’s land rights. All of us buy into their agenda. People of the Coast need land with title deeds. Of late, though, MRC has been associated with both verbal and physical violent expression of their agenda. The declaration that no elections will take place next time at the Coast; the burning of the Electoral Commission’s property; attacks on police officers; the Pwani si Kenya mantra with its secession clarion call, are pointers to the unveiling of a guerrilla movement. In a nutshell Mwalulu is saying: A guerrilla movement is in the making!

The Star talked of MRC as a monster. In a commentary on 3^rd  June by By Muthui Kariuki the paper says: The activities and pronouncements of this organization  (MRC)have clearly proved that it is not your regular neighbourhood welfare chama. It has all the makings of a monster that will end up eating the chicken, the children and the foolish master! In a nutshell Kariuki is calling the MRC a dangerous monster!

The Sunday Nation proposed devolution. In his column “The Week that Was” Kwendo Opanga says :I do not support secession of the Coast as demanded by the MRC. I support the Constitution I believe the Coast’s challenge in part arise from failed leadership. Therefore the MRC should move to legally fill this void. It must plot to win all seats in the Region in the coming general election legally. Then it should embark on changing the Coast in accordance with the Constitution. In a nutshell Kwendo is saying: Get your autonomy legally!

Except for the commentary by Kwendo Opanga all the others can be described as adversarial. They say: Don’t tolerate it; a guerrilla movement is in the making because it is a dangerous monster. Whereas every media house, indeed every journalist, is protected by Article 33 defence of freedom of expression, the same Constitution says freedom of expression does not extend to propaganda for war; incitement to violence; hate speech; or advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others. Besides that the ethical principle calls for news reports or commentaries not to be written or broadcast in a manner likely to inflame the passions, aggravate the tension or accentuate the strained relations between the communities concerned.

Journalists are nationalists and the subject of secession can be extremely emotive. Despite that, however, they are expected to be professionals first and adhere to professional ethics as much as they obey the law. The fact that the MRC exits is itself very important news. But looked at the whole phenomenon as the existence of a serious and may be legitimate conflict, then the coverage of the whole scenario must be approached from a professional way of covering conflict which is growingly becoming a very important area of specialisation in the profession.

Conclusion

Examining the few examples of the coverage of the MRC phenomenon elucidated above, leads one to conclude that the manner in which the stories were written could not, strictly speaking, be said to be ethically upright.  The stories examined showed the tendency for journalists, backed by their editors, to concentrate on reportorial conveyor-belt presentations of stories instead of engaging in a much more professionally admirable method of interpretative reporting. By and large the print media exhibited an impressive ability to adhere to the ethical principle of impartiality, which, from the moment it was first established many years ago, called for the avoidance of tendentiousness in news presentation.   

The same, however, cannot be said about the FM stations down at the Coast, where the MRC is said to be gaining popularity through local MPs who secretly back the banned organisations. The matter is made worse by the fact that a number of them own the stations which are said to be sympathetic to the movement. I obtained this information from a number of journalists who work for the FM stations and with whom I rubbed shoulders when I was training them in Mombasa recently.

According to the stories published about the MRC, journalists point out that the leader of the organisation is the uncharismatic and unassuming Suleiman Mwamnwanzi whose background is only said to be that of a simple policeman. The obvious professional scream for an urgent personality interview with the man obviously went unheard and so the mystery of MRC continues to deepen. Such an interview could probably reveal where the MRC gets funds from to launch a regional campaign of propaganda covering Kwale, Kilifi, Malindi Tana River and Taita Taveta counties.

An attempt by the Sunday Nation of February 5^th to demystify the organisation was commendable; but was not professionally done to the level of leaving no stone unturned. Though the paper painted a hopeless picture of the future of MRC, it didn’t give any reasons for that conclusion. Journalists gave the Director of NSIS, Michael Gichangi, a lot of publicity when he revealed that the Government was aware of a number of politicians associated with MRC. Yet they made no attempt to find out who the concerned politicians were.

An attempt to get answers to a series of FIVE “Ws” and “H” questions posed above would have formed the basis for news editors’ briefing and debriefing of reporters covering the MRC. That, together with techniques of investigative reporting, could have helped the country understand the many intricacies surrounding the illegal organisation.