DR Siyat Abdi and Mugambi Paul
According to the World Bank, WHO and the United Nations One billion people, or 15% of the world’s population, experience some form of disability.
Persons with disabilities, on average as a group, are more likely to experience adverse socioeconomic outcomes than persons without disabilities. Such as less education, poorer health outcomes, lower levels of employment, and higher poverty rates.
Barriers to full social and economic inclusion of Kenyans with disabilities include inaccessible communication, navigating the physical environments, inaccessible transportation, the unavailability of assistive devices and technologies, non-adapted means of communication, gaps in service delivery, utter unemployment inequality and generally discriminatory prejudice and stigma in Kenyan society.
From our professional lenses and in-depth analysis, we observe that the voice of this largest minority was never hard on the BBI 156-page report.
Notwithstanding, understanding the influence of different stakeholders in public policy making is very Critical “Carolyne 2016].
Although the BBI Taskforce had lots of public network in executing some of the insisted public approaches [Carolyne 2017], the task force did a total disservice and provided just a window dressing of Kenyans with disabilities.
In our collective opinion, the first omission and a major setback was the lack of representation of persons with disability in the BBI task force for persons living with disabilities.
This affirms the incessant notion of the government of Kenya of not ensuring article 54 of the 2010 Kenyan Constitution is realized.
Our expectations were high, and therefore, we expected the Taskforce would provide a clear direction on accessible representation that responds to the needs of persons with disability.
Secondly, on behalf of all Kenyans with disabilities who are the largest minority, we affirm the term “Disability” appeared 9 times in the BBI Report.
This was not in reference to any commitments to the 9-point agenda in their Terms of Reference but giving basic information of the experiential circumstances people with disability find themselves in Kenya.
In other words, the task force deliberated on the historical background on issues regarding persons living with disabilities without offering any commitment on how the nation will address the historical and traditional social injustices encountered by person with disabilities in Kenya.
Instead, the Taskforce echoed the common cliché we are used to by outlining traditional principles which clinically failed to work in the past.
No doubt, the BBI task force affirms what Paul Mugambi said in one of his articles, emphasising why the disability movement in Kenya must change tact once and for all!
Increasing inclusivity on a political, economic, social, religious, cultural, youth, and gender basis is not Inclusivity devoid of disability.
How long are we going to continue being marginalised both in the national government and in the Counties?
It is worth noting the reflective theoretical commitment of Kenya to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development goals.
It affirms clearly that disability cannot be a reason or criteria for lack of access to development programming and the realization of human rights.
Additionally, the SDGS framework have already been integrated in both short- and long-term Kenyan plan strategies, but limited wheels of implementations are in actions.
Its significant, to pronounce that the SDG framework has seven targets, which explicitly refer to persons with disabilities, and six further targets on persons in vulnerable situations, which again include persons with disabilities.
The SDGs address essential development domains such as education, employment and decent work, social protection, resilience to and mitigation of disasters, sanitation, transport, and non-discrimination – all of which are important obligations for the Kenyan government.
Unfortunately, the BBI task force team clearly seem to have been communicating to persons with disabilities in the charity model.
This is to mean the expressions reference to persons living with disabilities seem to be a separate group from Kenyans and this shows that there was exclusion in addressing persons with disabilities in the BBI report.
Thirdly, the term inclusion appeared 24 times.
The only relevant was the 22nd mention.
The cruel irony is that Article 174(e) of the Constitution provides that one of the objectives of devolution in Kenya is ‘to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and underserved or discriminated-against communities.’
It is for this reason that the Taskforce strongly feels that measures leading to greater inclusion, equality, equity, and basic fairness at the National level should be mirrored in the Counties, both in law, policy and administration.”
Do you think people with disability will enjoy this commitment?
Fourthly, the term Physical access has been mentioned twice and the 2nd one is relevant to persons with disabilities.
|Increase physical access for people with disabilities into buildings, particularly public ones, and transport.|
This shows the limitation of the BBI report since it’s not just enough to talk of physical access of built environment and transport only.
Kenyans living with disabilities still need more in area of universal and accessible housing, employment opportunity, and access to building (public and social facilities), communication and access to adaptive technology among many other disability services.
Fifthly, the term “has access” has been mentioned 42 times in the report.
The only relevant area is the 2nd mention. “
The aim should be for all Kenyans to have to cover the same distances to access public services.”
The access to information seems to be one of the major recommendations for the BBI task force but they avoided to demand for alternative accessible formats which could have ensured those with vision loss (blind), those with cognitive disability and other print disabled access information.
The BBI task force would have well utilized the Marrakesh treaty as a benchmark on access to information with excellent literature support from the United Nation Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD).
The BBI report missed opportunities to present across several mechanisms on enhancement of rights of people with disability in Kenya:
For instance, we anticipated that they would have an opportunity to present a structured Social protection systems that would be barrier-free and inclusive, and in a manner which ensures that everyone has equal opportunities to access social protection schemes, which may require special measures for particular categories of the population who may face additional barriers, such as persons with disability and the elderly Kenyans.
They missed to articulate the structure and design implementation of social protection, taking into account Human rights principles and standards at every stage of the schemes in the context of the level of marginalisation experiences of persons with disability both in the national government and in the Counties.
We welcome the Taskforce proposal to change the County Executive, including, but not limited to, the running mate of every candidate for the position of Governor.
While it is commendable to suggest consideration of the opposite gender, window of opportunity should have been given for any governor to decide their running mate, and if possible opportunity to make informed decision to pick a person with a disability as a Deputy Governor.
Another missed opportunity was to empower the National council for People with Disability NCPWD to be elevated a disability commission instead of a semiautonomous body incapable of servicing people with disability.
This could be either through a referendum or by legislation which could have subsequently ensured that the disability commission is well resourced and has the capacity to provide appropriate disability services based on social model and ensure the realization of disability rights.
On a positive note, the beauty of the BBI report is the importance of public participation and engagements. We hope people with disability will be fully engaged in decisions that matter to them.
In conclusion, the BBI report seem to have nailed the coffin for persons with disabilities by claiming that people with disabilities in Kenya are bunch of winchers, always complaining of injustices.
It seems the task force doesn’t understand that people with disabilities in Kenya are tired of the prolonged injustices experienced.
Yes, we must complain and continuously complain because we don’t expect civil and political elections of representatives in Party primaries and nominations to be fair; free and transparent elections in the context of persons with disability.
We must raise our voice because we are severely marginalised both in the national government and in the Counties in terms of employment and social services.
We cannot be satisfied with the BBI solution of just using reputable private recruitment companies to help, but to put in place recruitment legislations that give Kenyan people with disability opportunity to exercise their skills and talents to maintain their livelihood.
What the Kenyan people with disabilities need is real tangible implementation of legal and policy frameworks and ensuring persons living with disabilities actually access all government and private services just like any other Kenyan.