Analysing the case of secession in Kenya

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (2019) 6(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Author: Lutta, J.
• Pages: 1-27
• Published date: 16 August 2019

1

ANALYSING THE CASE OF

SECESSION IN KENYA

Joseph Lutta*

Abstract

Secession remains an emotive, divisive and nebulous subject within the realms of

public international law. This is because it pools together two diametrically opposed

notions of the right to self-determination and state sovereignty and territorial

integrity. On one hand, the right to self-determination is perceived as inalienable

since the people have the liberty to break away from a repressive regime and form

their own country. In contradistinction, the sovereignty of state is a sacrosanct

model that holds the state together and any notion of secession poses an existential

threat to the territorial integrity and political stability of a country. On a more

abstract level this paper attempts to underscore the legal position of secession in

Kenya. More specifically, it expounds on the various underlying reasons behind the

simmering support for self-determination across the country. In the same vein, it

expounds whether this concept is conceivable in light of the current constitutional

dispensation and prevailing judicial decisions. Fur thermore, it encompasses a

comprehensive comparative study of other judicial forums with a more specific

reference to the futuristic advisory opinion by ICJ on the Republic of Kosovo.

Thereafter, it suggests a possible model that would befit the Kenyan situation when

dealing with this concept.

Keywords: secession, Constitution of Kenya, self-determination

Résumé

La sécession demeure un sujet émotif, conflictuel et nébuleux dans le domaine du

droit international public. En effet, il regroupe des notions diamétralement opposées

du droit, à savoir l’autodétermination, la souveraineté de l’État et l’intégrité

territoriale. D’une part, le droit à l’autodétermination est perçu comme étant un

droit inaliénable, puisque les peuples ont la liberté de rompre avec un régime

répressif et de créer leur propre pays. À l’opposé, la souveraineté de l’État est un

modèle sacro-saint qui maintient l’État uni et toute notion de sécession constitue

une menace existentielle pour l’intégrité territoriale et la stabilité politique d’un

pays. Sur un plan plus abstrait, cet article tente de mettre en exergue la position

juridique de la sécession au Kenya. Plus particulièrement, il expose les différentes

raisons sous-jacentes du soutien plutôt timide à l’autodétermination à travers le

pays. Dans le même ordre d’idées, il s’interroge sur la concevabilité de ce concept à

la lumière l’agencement constitutionnel actuel et de la jurisprudence en vigueur. En

outre, il comprend une étude comparative exhaustive d’autres contextes judiciaires,

avec une référence plus précise à l’avis consultatif futuriste de la CIJ sur la

* Advocate of the High Court of Kenya. joelutta@gmail.com

(2019) 6(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

2 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 6, NO 1, 2019

République du Kosovo. Par la suite, il suggère un modèle possible qui conviendrait

à la situation du Kenya lorsque l’on aborde ce concept.

Mots-clés: sécession, constitution du Kenya, autodéter mination

No people must be forced under a sovereignty under which it

does not wish to live

Woodrow Wilson

Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy

Abraham Lincoln

General introduction

The right to secede remains a controversial topic in contemporary

international law.1 On one hand, it may be an efficient and effective means

of liberating oppressed classes of people from repressive regimes. This

notion is supported by the successful secession of Kosovo and Bangladesh

from Serbia and Pakistan respectively.2 Conversely, there is legitimate

concern that secession poses a serious existential threat to the terr itorial

integrity and sovereignty of a country.3 More often than not, secession is

fraught with the risk of civil wars and mass carnage as witnessed in Biafra,

former Yugoslavia and South Sudan.4

In addition, the positivist interpretation of the international legal nor ms

argues the right to self-determination was limited to the decolonisation

of the global south.5 However, this debate assumed a new geopolitical

dimension after the ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo.6 As I shall argue

in the third part of this paper, this futuristic decision transformed the

principle of self-determination by redefining the concept of ‘territorial

integrity’.7

1 Grotic, Vesna ‘The Right to self-determination-The Kosovo case before the International

Court of Justice’ (2013) 34(2) The Right to Self Determination 895.

2 Bing, Bing ‘The Independence of Kosovo: A unique case of Secession’ (2009) 8(1) Chinese

Journal of International Law 27.

3 Vidram, Jure ‘The annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the will of the People’ (2015)

16(2) German Law Journal 366.

4 S mith, Ka ren ‘The UK a nd “genocide” i n Biafra’ 16(2–3) J ournal of Ge nocide Rese arch

247; Wangui, Bet h (2014) ‘Seces sion as a Cause of Ethn ic Conflict: T he Case of South Sudan’

Unpublishe d Master s’ Thesis, Sch ool of Diplomac y, Universit y of Nairobi ; S Okije (2013)

‘Between S ecession a nd Federal ism: The In dependence of S outh Sudan a nd the Need for a

reconsider i n Nigeria’ 26 Globa l Business & Develop ment Law Journal 26 .

5 Liu, Hau ‘Two faces of Self-Determination in Political Divorce’ (2016) 10(4) Vienna Journal on

International Constitutional Law 357.

6 Cirkovic, Elena ‘An Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration

of Independence’ (2010) 11(8) German Law Journal 896.

7 Pet ers, An ne ‘Does Kosovo Lie i n the Lotu s-Land of F reedom’ 24 Le iden Journal o f

International Law 96.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd