Ignorance of law is no defence in criminal or civil proceedings. And ignorance of the National Transport and Safety (NTSA) Act No. 33 of 2012 can certainly cost lives. This act was born dramatically one morning at Bomas of Kenya, Nairobi.
Concerned that the order brought in by the “Michuki Rules” was ebbing after John Michuki left the Transport ministry, then-President Mwai Kibaki wanted to meet the agencies with a mandate on road traffic management so that they can explain why order on our roads could not be sustained.
The departments prepared papers and contributed notes for the keynote address—after everybody else had spoken. So the MC commenced the initial niceties. But an irritated President Kibaki suddenly interrupted the MC and took the podium.
He utilised the next 10 minutes dressing down the executives present. I recall him talking about people sitting there pretending to be serious while in actual senses they were “lousy” managers of public affairs. He termed the situation on our roads as “aibu” (a shame) and directed Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura to facilitate a framework for effective and sustainable enforcement of the Traffic Act. He concluded by literary chasing out the lousy crowd.
Shortly afterwards I found myself in a task force whose mandate finally resulted in the NTSA Act, which is meant to advise on policy, plan, manage and regulate and, most critically, administer the Traffic Act Cap 403 Laws of Kenya. During the stakeholders’ engagement process, a lot of blame was heaped on the police and the Magistrate’s Courts dealing with traffic law enforcement.
Sources of finances
The police convinced the task force that they had returned exemplary performance even in more sensitive areas like the Central Bank and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), which was represented by a very senior revenue enforcement officer and supported the position. It is KRA’s contribution that convinced the task force that, for NTSA to deliver, they had to be given their own independent sources of finances, hence their revenue collection mandate.
The revenue was meant to finance the morale, subsistence, operations, tooling and equipment of traffic police officers. Sadly, they are expected to raise the money for basic necessities such as meals, fuel, vehicle maintenance and incidentals while on duty.
The National Police Service and NTSA chief executives would liaise in the selection, recruitment, discipline, performance appraisal and effective deployment of the workforce seconded to NTSA. There was even a proposal that the Traffic department of NPS be renamed the Road Transport Facilitation Unit. And even if it meant mobile courts sit on the road, the magistrates would be facilitated to do so.
Commercial vehicles
NTSA was to test, license, register and regulate the competence, terms and conditions of employment of drivers of PSVs and commercial vehicles. It would maintain a register of competent drivers and support formulation of professional drivers’ unions. Drivers needed to be protected from employers who (in)directly expect them to drive defective motor vehicles or disobey the law and regulations, and the revenue generation headache in the sector.
Sadly, 10 years of the current Constitution, none of this has taken place. No wonder, instead of ICT-enabled speed enforcement cameras, we purport to regulate speed on ultra-modern highways by erecting bumps, which are catastrophic to both vehicle and road. Drivers are at the mercy of vehicle owners, police operate from the generosity of motorists and our road use is nothing but safe and efficient.
Like we need to do for the National Police Service Commission Act, let us revisit the intentions of the NTSA Act’s crafters to end the agony on our roads.
Mr Kiraithe, a former principal administrative secretary (PAS), was a spokesman for the National Police Service. [email protected]
