Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya has strongly criticized President William Ruto’s directive to abolish the vetting process for issuing national identity cards in North Eastern Kenya, warning that the decision could pose a significant security threat to the country.
Addressing the matter, Natembeya defended the vetting process, emphasizing that it was introduced for valid security reasons, especially in counties bordering volatile regions such as Somalia, where the militant group Al-Shabaab remains active.
He cautioned that removing the system without a proper alternative could have serious national security repercussions.
“The vetting process was established to ensure that only genuine Kenyan citizens receive identification documents. It is a necessary precaution, particularly in areas with a history of infiltration by criminal elements,” Natembeya stated.
The governor further warned that failure to scrutinize applicants properly could lead to dangerous consequences, including the risk of militants gaining access to sensitive government institutions.
“One day, we will have an Al-Shabaab operative as part of the Presidential Escort,” he warned, stressing the dangers of unregulated issuance of identity cards.
His remarks have sparked a heated debate over the delicate balance between national security and the right of citizens, particularly those in border regions, to access identification documents without discrimination.
Proponents of the president’s directive argue that the vetting process has been unfairly used to marginalize and discriminate against ethnic Somalis and other communities living in North Eastern Kenya.
They claim that the bureaucratic hurdles have long denied genuine citizens their rights to identification, which in turn affects their access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and employment.
However, security experts and political leaders opposing the directive argue that the vetting process is a crucial safeguard against the infiltration of criminal elements into Kenya.
They contend that completely abolishing the system without an effective alternative could expose the country to increased security threats, including terrorism and cross-border crime.
The government has yet to clarify whether additional security measures will be introduced to compensate for the removal of vetting, leaving the matter a topic of intense public discourse.
Share This Post
