Embracing teenage sexuality: Let’s rethink the age of consent in Kenya
Posted: 12 July, 2019 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: adolescent pregnancies, age of consent, age of discretion, chastity, children rights, consent, Conservative parents, double standard, Kenya, legal regulation, nudity, protecting teens, puritanical laws, romantic partners, safe sex practices, sex, sexual health, teenage sex, teenage sexuality, teenagers, war on sexuality 2 Comments
Author: William Aseka
Human Rights Lawyer
When the Court of Appeal in Eliud Waweru Wambui v Republic Criminal Appeal No 102 of 2016, raised the issue of reducing the age of consent for adolescent, there was panic in the whole country. Everyone including leading renowned children rights advocates rejected this idea even without reading the judgment of the court. The judges in this case stated it is rather immature for adults to think that ‘teenagers and maturing adults, do not engage in, and often seek sexual activity with their eyes fully open’. The judges were of the opinion that even though teenagers might not have attained the age of majority, they may have ‘reached the age of discretion’. However, before this case, the High Court in CKW v Attorney General & Director of Public Prosecution stated that the offense of defilement under the Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act is for the best interest of the child. In CKW case, unlike the Eliud Waweru the accused was a teenager like the victim. In fact, at the time of the offense occurring, both parties were sixteen years of age. The stark reality is that a consensual sexual relationship between two 16-year-olds is a criminal offense in Kenya. These draconian and puritanical laws are largely the product of a conservative political culture that has transformed the fight against child molestation into a full-blown war on teenage sexuality. We now live in a moral milieu so toxic and muddled that we lump together as “sex offenders” teenagers who send nude photos to each other with clergymen who rape toddlers. A first step toward reversing this madness — and actually protecting the health and safety of teenagers — would be to revise the age of consent downward to a threshold in accordance with those of other nations.
We must include and empower people with disabilities
Posted: 8 December, 2015 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: 3 December 2015, Basic Education Act of 2014, constitution, Constitution of Kenya, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, disability, disability rights, discrimination, education, emplyment, gender, inlcusion, International Day of Persons with Disabilities, Kenya, Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities, political participation, social participation, social particpation, transportation, United Nations 2 CommentsAuthor: William Aseka
Disability Rights Program Advisor, Kenya Human Rights Commission
Today one billion people around the world are living with disabilities. According to Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities more than three million people in Kenya are living with disabilities. Many persons with disabilities have good jobs and proper education. However, far too many persons with disabilities in Kenya face barriers to inclusion in many key aspects of society. As a result, people with disabilities do not enjoy access to society on an equal basis with others, which includes areas of transportation, employment, and education as well as social and political participation. The right to participate in public life is essential to create stable democracies, active citizenship and reduce inequalities in society.
People with mental disabilities ALSO have the right to marry in Kenya
Posted: 28 May, 2014 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: African Union Commission on International Law, Constitution of Kenya, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, equality, ICCPR, ICESCR, international law, Kenya, Marriage Act, Marriage Bill, mental disabilities, non-discrimination, polygamous marriages, right to marry 3 CommentsAuthor: William Aseka
Human Rights Fellow at Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University
The Marriage Bill (now Act) 2014 has elicited different reactions from Kenyans. Some mostly women, have argued that the law will allow men to engage in polygamous marriages. Some have hailed the law as consolidating the different types of marriages into one piece of legislation. However, the people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities have completely been left out of this debate. The law clearly discriminates and expressly denies people with mental disorders from exercising their right to marry. Section 11(2)(b) of the Marriage Act 2014 provides:-
Consent is not freely given where the party who purports to give it is suffering from any mental disorder or mental disability whether permanent or temporary…
The Act further provides in section 73 that if one suffers from ‘recurrent bouts of insanity’ then the partner is allowed to have the marriage annulled. This essay seeks to argue that the Marriage Act 2014 not only violates Kenya’s obligation under international law but also violates the Constitution of Kenya 2010 Article 27(4), which proscribes discrimination based on disability.
Why Kenya needs to ratify the ICESCR Optional Protocol
Posted: 4 November, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: African Union, Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, economic rights, International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, International Criminal Court, international human rights, Kenya, poverty, President Uhuru Kenyatta, socio-economic rights, South African Development Community Tribunal Leave a commentAuthor: William Aseka
LLM candidate, Syracuse University College of Law, New York (United States of America)
As Beth Simmons points out, three billion people survive on less than $2.50 per day. She states that if these facts are anything to go by, it is even harder to comprehend that economic rights have been codified as part of the international human rights system for the past 60 years. According to Simmons, what is even more disturbing is the fact that over 85% of states have ratified one or two treaties that recognise economic rights. In Kenya, more than 58% of Kenyans live below the poverty line. Further, more than half of the Kenyan population is poor and over 7 million Kenyans live in extreme poverty, despite Kenya having ratified the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 41 years ago.
On 5 May 2013, the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR entered into force after receiving its tenth instrument of ratification. The purpose of the Optional Protocol is to address violations of socio-economic rights which have been loosely applied when compared to the civil and political rights. The Protocol achieves this by giving an individual locus standi before the Committee and hence asking directly whether a state violated the ICESCR. As much as there is scepticism about this Protocol, this paper wishes to submit that states, especially Kenya, should look beyond this scepticism and ratify the Protocol. This article will provide both arguments for and against ratification of the Optional Protocol.
Freedom of the press? Not for the Ugandan press
Posted: 20 June, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: Africa, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Commission, constitution, Eritrea, freedom of expression, human rights, Human Rights Council, ICCPR, press freedom, right to privacy, Uganda, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, World Press Freedom 2 CommentsAuthor: William Aseka
Program Assistant (Human Rights Advocacy for Children with Disabilities), Governance Consulting
The freedom to form opinions and express them without fear of repression is a fundamental tenet for the development of a pluralistic, tolerant, and democratic society. This right represents not only the right to privacy of individuals to hold opinions and formulate thoughts, but also to express them in a public forum, especially as part of exercising the right to political participation. In addition, the right to access information, that is the right to seek and receive information, which also forms an important component of this right and which has added significance in the current age of information technology, is intrinsic to the transparent functioning of a democratic government and the effective and well-informed participation of civil society. In this context, freedom of opinion, expression and information is one of the core civil and political rights as it is essential for the exercise of all other human rights.
The right to freedom of opinion, expression and information is well-established and protected at both international and regional levels both legally and institutionally. The right is enshrined in various international instruments, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19), the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5(d)(viii)), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13) and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Article 6). The main international human rights body within the United Nations system, the Human Rights Council, also provides through its system of special procedures for a Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, which was established in 1993.
Education for all, even for children with disabilities in Kenya
Posted: 5 April, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Children with disabilities, Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Constitution of Kenya, Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities, education, human rights, international human rights, Kenya, United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 4 CommentsAuthor: William Aseka
Program Assistant (Human Rights Advocacy for Children with Disabilities), Governance Consulting
There is no outright definition of what education means, however commentators such as Milter has defined it as, an act, process or experience that systematically promotes learning, knowledge and development. By the same token, writers such as Mialeret have defined education from a much narrower view than the above stated, to mean formal instruction of knowledge within recognised and well-structured system of institutions and programmes. This definition by Mialeret is also seen in the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education. Therefore, having known what education means, then the question that comes next is: what is the right to education?
General Comment No. 13 of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Right (CESR) defines education as both a human right itself and an indispensable means of realising other human rights. The committee goes further to state that as an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalised adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities. These economically and socially marginalised groups include children with disabilities in Kenya and all over the world. This essentially means that children with disabilities are well protected and are entitled to education and it is not a favour that any government would be doing to these groups.
Prisoners too have a right to determine the government of their choice
Posted: 6 February, 2013 Filed under: William Aseka | Tags: constitution, disenfranchisement, elections, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Kenya, prisoners, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, voting 10 CommentsAuthor: William Aseka
Program Assistant (Human Rights Advocacy for Children with Disabilities), Governance Consulting
One of the most critical ways that individuals can influence governmental decision-making is through voting. Voting is a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. Voting generally takes place in the context of a large-scale national or regional election, however, local and small-scale community elections can be just as critical to individual participation in government.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, recognizes the integral role that transparent and open elections play in ensuring the fundamental right to participatory government. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly stipulates under Article 21:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures. (Emphasis mine)
In fact just five years after the end of the reign of the apartheid government of South Africa, the country’s constitutional court addressed one of the most profound issues facing the new democracy. The case involved a challenge to the denial of voting rights for citizens incarcerated in South African prisons and raised the fundamental issue of the meaning of democracy, one that was particularly poignant in a society in which such questions had been restricted from public debate. In his written decision for the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Justice Albie Sachs declared, “Rights may not be limited without justification and legislation dealing with the franchise must be interpreted in favor of enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement.”
AfricLaw 