HL Deb 15 February 1993 vol 542 cc961-82

6.48 p.m.

Lord Tordoff rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Commonwealth Observers' Group on the recent elections in Kenya.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

I begin by thanking the Minister for being here tonight. I know that she is always dashing round the world and it is very good that she is here for a debate on what I believe to be a subject which she herself agrees is important.

I should like to offer your Lordships a short description of the events leading up to the election in Kenya on 29th December last year, to try to explain in some detail the observations and conclusions of the observers from the Commonwealth Secretariat, to consider the future and to ask the Government what their reaction is to the report. The report received some criticism in the press. It appeared that the journalists—who always like simple answers to complex questions—wanted to know whether the elections were free and fair. Consider the following circumstances: 1 million voters are displaced from the electoral register; there is substantial personation of votes; there is a deliberate failure to de-limit voting districts so as to present a high disparity in electoral size, varying between 20,000 and 126,000; and there is a huge imbalance in the number of voters required to elect representatives of different political parties to Parliament. Are those elections free and fair? Should they be nullified? I do not think so. All those things I have mentioned apply to local and parliamentary elections in Britain.

The criticism of the report in the press also tends to show that on the whole the press has not read the report. There is also a lack of understanding of what the Commonwealth observers are supposed to be doing. I reiterate that they are there to observe, to record their impartial findings and to report to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and to the political parties in the country. It is not the job of the Commonwealth observers to determine the future of the country. It is up to the Kenyan people, the Commonwealth and the donor countries to interpret those findings and determine their response.

I should start by explaining what happened before we arrived there, because the process did not begin with our arrival on 16th and 17th December last year. It could be said to have started—although it probably started long before—with the decision of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Harare in 1991, when it was decided that the Commonwealth should try to assist the extension of multi-party democracy throughout the Commonwealth. As a result of that there was a significant number of visits by the Secretary General and his staff to Kenya. Technical teams were sent out there to help to identify the issues. Those noble Lords who have read the report will have seen those issues identified on page 1. As a result of that activity significant changes were made in the electoral arrangements. I wish to take the opportunity tonight to pay tribute to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and to his secretariat.

The delegation went out mainly on 16th and 17th December. It comprised 25 people from 18 countries. It is important to recognise that this was not a British delegation; it was a Commonwealth delegation. It contained only three British people: the honourable Colin Moynihan, Sylvia Heal and myself. The other members came from different parts of the Commonwealth and they comprised as broad a cross-section of the Commonwealth as one could wish. It is important to reiterate that this was a Commonwealth enterprise. The delegation consisted of experienced people such as judges, diplomats, parliamentarians, election officers and a highly qualified team of staff who deserve the highest tribute.

We started by having initial discussions with the Government, the President and the political parties. We talked to the local national monitoring units. They comprised a useful group of people to whom praise is very much due. I wish to place on record—this is contained in the report—our thanks to the officials in Kenya: the Permanent Secretary, the foreign department and Ambassador Sefu who did such a lot to ensure we were able to move about freely and efficiently. I wish to pay tribute to my driver, Mr. Joseph Boit, who drove about 2,500 kilometres on my behalf and without whose assistance we would not have found half the polling stations that we found on polling day.

After that initial period, 36 of us, including members of the staff, went out to different regions of the country. In addition to ourselves there were other observers and monitors. There were about 50 from the International Republican Institute of the United States. There were Scandinavians, European parliamentarians and church groups, including the former Bishop of Manchester, as well as diplomats from the High Commissions and embassies in Nairobi. It was a pity that the Carter Centre, the Kennedy Center and the National Democratic Institute were not allowed to send observers because it was alleged by the Government of Kenya that they would be biased. I believe that that view had been given by Kenneth Kaunda as a result of what had happened in Zambia the year before.

Let us spend a moment to look at the political situation which existed prior to 1992. We must bear in mind that Kenya was a one-party state for almost 30 years. It had a bad human rights record. The previous elections had been conducted not by secret ballot but by people queuing up in front of pictures of their candidate. Election petitions were still being heard from the 1988 elections four years later. It was quite clear from our discussions with President Moi that he was not in favour of multi-party elections. He made it quite plain to us that he feared that that would lead to excessive tribal divisions. It was only due to extended pressure from donor countries that the elections took place at all.

The contestants all came from nine parties. Political parties have to be registered in Kenya. That does not occur in this country, although it might be a good idea if it did. Three parties were rejected. One of them was an Islamic party from the Mombasa area. It was rejected because it was regarded as being tribalist. The Green Party and the Green Party of Africa were rejected for security reasons. That seems a little curious. One must bear in mind that the opposition parties in Kenya were relatively new. Many of them comprised seasoned politicians who had been in the Kenya African National Union (KANU) but they were very new to their political parties. They were inexperienced in campaigning in multi-party elections. Their membership was confined to certain areas and there was quite clearly a difference between what was happening in the urban and in the rural areas. I noticed that also in the elections that I witnessed in Zambia last year and in Bulgaria the year before. Those are points one should remember when trying to establish who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies". This was not a highly sophisticated election campaign.

The report considers the conditions for free and fair elections and it spells out some of these. It states that while constitutional reforms are relatively easy on paper, there are major problems in changing the attitudes of politicians of ruling parties and civil servants brought up in a one-party system.

Page 7 of the report states: Recent Commonwealth experience suggests that at the political level two elements are of particular importance to the conduct of free and fair elections during the transition from a one-party to a multi-party system: the creation of a 'level playing field'"—

I have to apologise as I thought we had removed the expression "level playing field" from the report along with all the split infinitives. However, I am afraid one instance of a "level playing field" crept in. The report continues: the creation of a 'level playing field' for the lawful activities of all political parties and a thorough de-linking of government affairs, personnel and resources from those of the ruling party".

That is frightfully important. Another important factor is the establishment of an independent electoral commission which all the parties can trust and whose rules are accepted and administered fairly. There should be free and fair access to the press, TV and radio. I shall return to that point in a moment. There should also be an absence of intimidation and bribery. There should be secrecy of the ballot, an absence of ballot rigging and accuracy at the count. How far were those criteria met?

I shall deal with some of the problem areas. The first problem existed before we arrived: that is the matter of the nominations. As I believe I have already said, we should bear in mind that there were three concurrent elections: one for the presidency, one for the Parliament and one for the civic elections. There were considerable abuses as regards the nominations for the parliamentary and the civic elections. There was widespread evidence of nominees being kidnapped, threatened, robbed of documents and of money and of being prevented from getting their nominations in on time. Such practices were more prevalent in some areas than in others. I was working in the Rift Valley and in the four districts that I covered there were some 15 constituencies and only four of them were contested. One could not help but notice that those were all in the president's own area. Indeed, when we met the president and asked him about it he said, "It is unthinkable that anybody would come from outside the area and seek to stand for election in my own home area". As I recall, our leader replied that he was sure that the president did not expect a totally different form of democracy in Kenya from the rest of the world.

There was also the problem that the Attorney General had altered the law without bothering to tell anybody. The time between the announcement of the election and nomination day was changed from not less than to not more than 21 days. It was probably illegal for him to do that but he did it nevertheless. In the event only six days were allowed between the announcement of the election and nomination day.

During the campaign itself there was considerable evidence of intimidation in the period running up to the election. In the area where I was working I visited refugee camps where there were people whose homes had been burnt, their crops destroyed, their cattle stolen and many of their friends and relatives killed. It was a form of political ethnic cleansing. The Kalenjins had been told by the local politicians—and I place the responsibility for creating the atmosphere firmly on the politicians—that if KANU lost the election they would lose land to other tribes and they would have no influence on the government.

Here I should like to pay tribute to the churches. Huge numbers of people—in the region of 15,000 in the Burnt Forest area—had suddenly landed in the lap of the local churches. It was comforting to see the way in which churches of all denominations worked together in a truly ecumenical way to help out those poor people, with very little government assistance.

I do not say that there was no intimidation by opposition parties. In some parts of the country there undoubtedly was, but it was certainly not on the same scale. In the light of the overall situation, I do not want to overestimate the effect on the result. It was localised, but nevertheless unacceptable. The decoupling of the government and KANU hardly took place throughout the campaign.

Chapter 5 of the report devotes considerable attention to the question of media freedom. It was clear that the press was biased in favour of KANU. The press being biased in favour of the government party is not unknown in other countries. However, in the case of the electronic media it is more serious, particularly when the electronic media are controlled by the government. The report states: this became one of the most contentious issues during the campaign. We consider that arrangements to ensure that all parties have equal access to the media are always an important indicator of the strength of the commitment to the democratic process … we issued a statement pointing out that there was a noticeable imbalance in the reporting of the election on radio and television and that we would hope to see greater exposure given to the activities of the opposition parties in the publicly owned media".

In so far as that was achieved, the opposition were shown only in a derogatory light. Most of the evening television broadcasts showed what the president had been doing that day and what he would be doing the following day.

More seriously, a number of journalists, particularly from the weekly newspapers, had been put in gaol and charged with sedition. So far as I know they are not yet off the hook even now. One shudders to think what would have happened to the Sun newspaper in similar circumstances.

There was certainly intimidation and bribery. There was intimidation at public meetings. An organisation called Young Kenya 92, which was almost certainly illegal, was organised and paid. I myself saw people given money and taken off in what appeared to be government vehicles, although they had private number plates. That was in addition to the difficulties which the opposition parties experienced in obtaining permits for meetings.

Serious attempts were made to intimidate opposition candidates right up to the last minute. In Kerio South, a constituency which was part of my area, a lady called Tabatha Seii was very nearly seriously attacked the night before polling. Fortunately she had with her not only some askari but also a member of the BBC World Service. I should also like to pay tribute to the World Service. It was interesting that when speaking to people about the media in Kenya if one suggested that the radio and television were biased they would say, "That doesn't matter because we've got the World Service". That was very good to hear.

Allegations were made that voting cards were being bought from voters. One was supposed to have a pink voting card to be able to go to the polls at all. Those were being bought for quite a lot of money and either being destroyed or handed over to supporters of the government party. That was an issue on which the chairman of the Electoral Commission showed at his best. He suddenly announced about 10 days before the election that it was no longer necessary to have the cards to vote. A great deal of money had changed hands to no great purpose. There was considerable circumstantial evidence to support most of those complaints, but, as always, it was difficult to quantify and it was difficult to obtain first-hand evidence.

A major complaint was made about the composition of the Electoral Commission. It was appointed without consultation with the opposition parties. The fitness for office of its chairman became an issue. He had been chairman when Kenya was a single party state. The report, both in the text on page 10 and in Annex 10, goes into the matter in some detail because we thought it important. We said: With the change to a multi-party system, it became vital that the contestants should have the confidence that the Electoral Commission was indeed an independent and impartial body free from the direction and control of any other person in the exercise of its functions. Not surprisingly, therefore, the opposition parties objected to Justice Chesoni continuing as Chairman of the Electoral Commission on the grounds that he was not fit for the office".

The reason he was allegedly not fit for office was, as the appendix tells us, because in 1984 he had been a judge of the High Court of Kenya. Bankruptcy proceedings were filed against him and he was allowed to retire on a pension. The government-controlled bank was ordered by the government to write off his debt. In 1990 he was reappointed an acting justice of appeal, but then it was found that there was an outstanding application to commit him to prison which was due to come up in May 1990. He was asked to resign; he refused and was fired. Nevertheless, the president felt that he was suitable to remain as chairman of the Electoral Commission. We said: The retention of Justice Chesoni in the face of what were apparently justified opposition protests could reasonably be interpreted by the opposition parties as an unmistakable signal that the Government would use its powers to secure an advantage for the ruling party".

There is no doubt that that feeling that he was totally compromised and was a tool of the government was responsible for a considerable amount of the suspicion and sourness which occurred at that stage of the election process. As we say in the report, at a later stage Justice Chesoni performed much better.

There is much more that I could say, but I see that time is whizzing by. Come election day, in spite of all the problems, the situation was much redeemed. There were serious organisational problems: late opening of polling booths; lack of experience; considerable confusion; and sporadic but by no means widespread instances of attempted ballot rigging—but there were many more allegations than confirmed cases. There was a serious lack of secrecy. I saw polling booths where the screens had been totally removed. In many cases illiterate voters were assisted in a way which was unacceptable. However, it is fair to say that in general polling day went a long way to redeem the whole election process.

In the last paragraph of our assessment we say: we can only conclude that neither the polling day arrangements nor the polling and counting processes were adequately designed or carried out to meet the specific situations and needs which the Kenyan electoral environment required. This, coupled with a lack of comprehensive training and civic education, led to the inevitable delays and confusion at the polls. If it were not for the laudable commitment, dedication and patience of some poll officials, party agents and, in particular, the electors, the whole process could easily have become a fiasco. Special mention must be made of the thousands of local monitors who tirelessly and vigilantly kept watch at all polling stations and counting centres. As it was, polling day, and the many hours afterwards, was probably the most positive aspect of the whole electoral process".

In conclusion, I can do no better than again quote from our own conclusion in the summary. We stated: Despite the flaws, we believe that these elections marked the first step on the path to multi-party democracy. The process, as it turned out, was facilitated greatly by the resolute determination of the voters to make a success of their contribution to its development. Regrettably, the contribution of the Government and the political parties did not match that of the voters on this occasion".

I wish to ask the Government this question. Where do we go from here? Kenya has come a long way. It has begun to be a multi-party democracy. It has a substantial elected opposition. Parliament has met and has been prorogued; I hope that that is merely a technicality. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist on that because she has been in Kenya so recently. All eyes are on President Moi. Will he treat the Opposition properly? Will the Opposition behave as a proper opposition group should? Are the abuses of the past ended? Will the Opposition be allowed to operate freely? Will the media be allowed to operate freely? Will journalists be allowed to criticise?

The Commonwealth has an enormous role to play. The Secretary-General has already been back to Kenya and is in contact with all sides. He is using his leverage, expertise and experience to try to assist all sides. We must be grateful to him for that. I am sure that the Minister is doing likewise. However, we must make it clear that we can only support the Kenyan Government if progress is made. Progress is important not only for Kenya itself but for the whole of Africa and for democracy in Africa. Kenya was the big test. It almost failed. But it can succeed if the President, the governing party and the Opposition have the will to make it succeed. Only at that stage should our support be guaranteed.

7.12 p.m.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his work as one of the Commonwealth Observer Group and for initiating the debate. He did so with the balance of judgment that the report also demonstrates. It was wise to let the dust settle before we had the debate. I believe that now is a good time to examine the report and the situation in Kenya in order to consider how Britain, especially Her Majesty's Government, should respond to the situation.

I pay a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I believe that her visits to Kenya before President Daniel arap Moi had responded to the cause for multi-party democracy were important. The British Government supported the strongly-held American view, and that of other aid donors. I am grateful to her for her recent visit. That is another reason why today is a good time to have the debate. I look forward intensely to hearing what she has to say.

President Daniel arap Moi had opposed the concept of multi-party democracy not only for long years before he gave in to pressure, but also afterwards when he indicated that he did not think much of the system. I believe that the report confirmed that sufficiently for us to watch carefully to ensure that he does not now use his election-given power to revert to the days of oppression and fraud which typified so much of his rule from 1978 until December 1992. He did not hesitate to throw his opponents into gaol without charge, without trial or the protection of the law. It was not by accident that he became one of the richest men in the world during his period in office. That was at the expense of his own people.

We look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say and her comments on the report by the Commonwealth Observer Group. The group's report will have enabled some people to reach the simple conclusion that the elections were rigged, or for the Opposition to say, "We was robbed". It is quite possible that fair and well-conducted elections could have led to a different result which might have put opposition parties into the role of the presidency. I wish to touch on a few points which arise from the report. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said.

First, the ruling party could have done far more to control and curb the ethnic excesses. Secondly, the Government refused to have dialogue with the newly-created opposition parties in the run-up to the election. Some agreement between them might have greatly improved the situation. Thirdly, the Government were responsible for the structure and composition of the Electoral Commission, to which the noble Lord referred. Fourthly, there was inadequate training of registration officers. Over a million people were unable to register to vote. There was multiple registration. Fifthly the refusal to publish the 1989 census results was unfortunate. Public servants were expected to act in the interests of KANU, the ruling party.

Sixthly, the decision by the Government to cut short the period of the campaign was in the interests of the Government, as they saw it. Seventhly, many election candidates were prevented from handing in their nomination papers. Opposition parties were harassed in the Rift Valley, and elsewhere, and in the North Eastern Province were unable to organise election meetings freely or, in some cases, not at all. Eighthly, there was widespread bribery. Ninthly, on polling day many polling stations were not open for voters until long after the time that they were supposed to be open. Tenthly, the counting of the votes was very slow indeed. Many other points have been touched on by the noble Lord.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. Does he accept that the late opening and the slow counting were due to inexperience and, in some cases perhaps, incompetence rather than deliberate attempts by the governing party to damage the election?

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I do indeed. However, it helps to substantiate the point that I made: that the election officers were not properly trained to do their job effectively. I do not say that it necessarily affected the result. I simply say that as a well-run election, it did not quite come up to scratch.

Such a catalogue of events as the noble Lord has revealed, and to which I have added, were almost entirely to the advantage of KANU and were more than enough to disqualify the outcome and to declare the election to be invalid. But in the end it was the common sense and political judgment of the political leaders, of the people across the spectrum, and indeed of the Commonwealth observers, which ensured that Daniel arap Moi is still President of Kenya—although in my view he does not deserve to be so.

I am intentionally seeking to be as brief as I can. Before coming to the lessons to be learned from the election in Kenya let me reveal two interests. First, I have an intense interest in Kenya. I have been there many times and hope to go there many times again. I hope that nothing I say today will make my life more difficult the next time that I am in Kenya. Secondly, Mr. Kenneth Matiba—he was the leader of the party who gained most votes among the opposition parties—has been a close personal friend of mine for well over 30 years. He and his wife Edith lived with my family when they were both doing postgraduate studies. He was educated at a mission school. I know his abilities. His absolute honesty and his integrity are attributes that are not always present in all political leaders even in countries other than Kenya, to put it at its mildest. He was a success as a civil servant and as a businessman. He was then a success as a Cabinet Minister. He was a success as a husband and father too, and it was his belief in multi-party democracy which led to his estrangement from President Moi when he was arguing the case for multi-party democracy and President Moi was saying, "None of that"—so much so that Matiba was thrown into jail without charge or trial and his family not knowing for many months where he was. He suffered appalling deprivations which undoubtedly, in my view, led to the stroke which occurred 11 months after his incarceration. The records of his family are as distinguished as his own.

Poor Ken was kept in solitary confinement for 11 months, totally cut off from his family and forced to sleep on a brick floor. Before his detention his wife and one of their daughters were brutally attacked in their home. They were severely injured and both were in hospital for some time. All his family stood by him throughout his struggle.

It was Mr. Matiba's qualities of leadership which led him also to leave his hospital bed for treatment in London at a time when his supporters might have created a situation of violent conflict. They declared, as soon as they knew that he was in hospital, that they would free him the following Sunday. That would undoubtedly have led to violence unless he had simply been freed, and there was no indication that Mr. Moi would do that.

Those same qualities led him to return to Kenya for the multi-party elections for which he had called for such a long time. He returned to the elections before fully recovering from his stroke. He had no opportunity after his operations and treatment fully to recover. It was again those same qualities which led him to turn away from almost certain violence after the results were known. Had he or the other party leaders called on his supporters either to boycott the rigged elections or to refuse to accept their outcome, the situation in Kenya might indeed have been dire.

I pay tribute to the report of the observers who used their political judgment. I also pay tribute to the party leaders who may be open to criticism for other actions, but they decided in the interests of their country that they would take their places in parliament. I believe that Mr. Matiba's time is still to come and I hope that it will not be long.

I totally support the political judgment of those who said, in the words of the Commonwealth observers, that, These elections marked the first step on the path to multi-party democracy". As it turned out, the process was facilitated greatly by the resolute determination of the voters to make a success of their contribution to its development. Tributes were paid to the patience and determination displayed by the voters. They deserve a better government than they have as a result of the election.

Finally, what should Britain's role be now? For years Britain took a low profile. I agree with the comments in the report in the Independent of 6th January: Only when it seemed that the country would explode if Mr. Moi did not allow multi-party democracy and when all other aid donors were urging democracy, did Britain finally put pressure on Mr. Moi by stopping aid to Kenya". It was at that time that the noble Baroness made her significant contribution to the welfare of Kenya.

In my view, Kenya needs Britain more than Britain needs Kenya. Because of our long historic ties we have a link with Kenya and feel naturally, as part of the Commonwealth, a responsibility for that country. I had the privilege of knowing Jomo Kenyatta before and during his presidency, meeting him not long before his death. I knew Tom M'Boya and the late Michael Blundell before I had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Moi. I was introduced to him by Ken Matiba.

Because of the £1 billion worth of investment, Britain's voice will always be listened to in Kenya. Unhappily, Kenya has been split during these elections along tribal lines. The Luo and the Kikuyu were solidly against Mr. Moi. It would be wrong to give Mr. Moi unqualified support or immediately to restore the aid programme. We must be satisfied that the new-found democracy is in safe hands. I certainly agree with all the conclusions of Christian Aid's report, based on the wise, sound advice of the former Bishop the Very Reverend and Mrs. Stanley Booth-Clibborn. I thought that they produced an outstanding report in which there were three points with which I associate myself. Unfortunately, I do not have them to hand, which reduces my speech.

The points were that we must ensure that Kenya stays on the right and proper path, that we do not see it going back again to the situation in which those who voted against the government suffer—either the political leaders or the parties. The report by Christian Aid was very valuable and I wish that I had it with me.

I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will take the same view as did Christian Aid that British policy will be based on the performance of the newly-elected government. I look forward to what the noble Baroness has to say and I shall watch with interest Britain's relationship with Kenya during the months and years to come.

7.26 p.m.

Viscount Brentford

My Lords, I too would like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, not only for his hard work in Kenya in December but also for his interesting remarks in opening the debate on the Question. I also look forward to the speech of my noble friend Lady Chalker. I know from my contacts in Kenya in what extremely high regard she is held in that country.

I do not wish to go over all the ground that has been so ably covered by both the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ennals. I wish to make just one or two points. I agree that the process is a first step towards democracy. The extent to which the result of the election reflects the will of the people I find hard to diagnose. Perhaps two-thirds of the electorate voted against the government, but the government, KANU, were returned. I also wish to know whether my noble friend can tell me how many seats in parliament are still vacant or being contested. Again, I have heard conflicting reports and it is hard to see what is right and proper there.

Perhaps the most important issue is whether the lessons have been learnt for the next election so that the corruption which clearly existed will be much reduced. I do not believe that the government were the only party acting corruptly. I believe that there was opposition corruption as well in certain quarters, though to a lesser extent.

Much has been said about the training of election officers. I hope that there can be ways in which the Kenya Government can be encouraged to initiate training and perhaps put training under the Commonwealth team so that it is impartial. Then election officers will in future not be trained by KANU. It is clearly an enormous difficulty that the separation of the government from KANU was not able to be pushed any more than it was and the two ran together.

I felt, however, that it was encouraging that the superb team of observers was not hoodwinked, as some of the reports from certain quarters suggest that much hoodwinking went on. I am enormously encouraged by the Commonwealth observers' report which ended by being extremely realistic.

Perhaps I may put one or two further questions to the Minister about what Her Majesty's Government's policy will be in the medium and the long term. I know because I read it in the press—we know that everything is true in the press, but in this instance I believe it—that my noble friend has been exerting her great influence to encourage dialogue between the government and the opposition parties. I would be very grateful if she were able to inform noble Lords of what progress she has made. It is important that between them they try to solve the country's outstanding political and economic problems, which are still enormous.

My last question is: what is Her Majesty's Government's view on resuming support for Kenya's beleaguered economy? Is my noble friend satisfied that economic reform and political reform have met the criteria for bilateral and multilateral aid to be resumed, or should further measures be required of the Kenya Government? If so, what action is being taken to encourage those further measures to be taken so that the country can receive aid? Unfortunately, as has already been said, the country is in a very poor economic state at the present time. The aid countries, the government, the opposition and other sources of influence in Kenya need to pull together so that the country can regain its leading position in Africa and not be pulled down by those problems. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for putting down the Question. I also greatly look forward to what the Minister will say in response since she has so recently been in Kenya. I have some more specific questions for her regarding what the UK Government will be doing in response.

Kenya is clearly at a crossroads. After the first multi-party elections for over 25 years, it faces an uncertain future. It could go the way of the proper establishment of democracy, in which opposition parties are able to operate freely, in which the government are accountable to parliament and in which human rights are preserved and large-scale corruption is eliminated. Alternatively, it could return to autocratic rule, leading to civil unrest and disorder, fuelled by the rightly justifiable outrage of the opposition parties, leading in the end to serious upheaval and political instability. How Western governments, and in particular the British Government, handle relations with Kenya in the crucial months ahead, following an election which leaves much to be desired in its conduct, is vitally important.

Looking back over the past decade, one cannot but be rather uneasy about the UK Government's record in dealing with Mr. Moi and his government. It is an uneasiness already expressed by my noble friend Lord Ennals, although in a very gentle way. Having succeeded to the presidency on the death of Kenyatta in 1979, Moi embarked on an increasingly repressive regime. More and more he ruled by presidential decree, locking up those who opposed him, denying such opponents a fair trial and torturing some of them in prison. At the same time corruption became rife. Through much of that period the UK Government said and did little, in spite of their large potential for influence as Kenya's biggest bilateral aid donor. Surely they should have acted sooner to try to curb the brutality and corruption of the Moi regime.

But as more and more aid donors became concerned about blatant breaches of human rights, and following the murder of the former Foreign Minister, Robert Ouko, the Government finally started to put pressure on Mr. Moi along with other aid donors. There was an agreement under the chairmanship of the World Bank to suspend lending and balance of payments assistance to Kenya in late 1991. Their resumption was tied to the regime introducing political reforms as well as undertaking a more effective implementation of the country's structural adjustment programme. One month later, President Moi's KANU party agreed to legalise opposition parties and to hold multi-party elections. As we all know, they took place at the end of December a year later, with a resulting victory for KANU.

The crucial question now is whether Mr. Moi—a most reluctant democrat—intends to behave in a way which is appropriate to a democratic leader. The signs so far are not auspicious. Perhaps we should not be surprised. For nearly 14 years, President Moi has exercised dictatorial power, showing little tolerance or ability to compromise. He must now make dramatic changes in the way he governs.

Such changes are particularly important in the context of an election which raises many questions about whether it was genuinely free and fair. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. He speaks with authority as a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group which monitored the elections. Having myself been an observer of the election process in another African country which had been denied the benefit of elections, I recognise the difficulties facing such a group both in collecting and assessing the evidence and in making a judgment about whether the election was free and fair. However, having read the Commonwealth report, it is impossible not to feel uneasy.

The first cause for concern is the Electoral Commission and its composition. Frankly, the Commonwealth observers' report is contradictory on the matter. As the report indicates, the opposition complained about both the composition and the performance of the Electoral Commission, and argued that Mr. Chesoni, its chairman, and some other members of the Electoral Commission were unfit to serve on that body—a charge which, of course, he vigorously denied. The report then states that the Commonwealth observers received no information that would cast doubt on the denial, despite the Commonwealth delegation receiving a file which apparently lent credence to the allegations when it visited Kenya in November last year.

Somewhat paradoxically, the observers' report goes on to suggest that there were reasonable grounds for challenging Mr. Chesoni's credentials. Indicative of this, the report states that retaining Mr. Chesoni: could reasonably be interpreted by the opposition parties as an unmistakable signal that the Government would use its powers to secure an advantage for the ruling party … [his] lack of transparency, his unwillingness to meet the opposition parties and his apparent collaboration with the Attorney-General in improperly shortening the period between the issue of the writ and the nomination of candidates, confirmed opposition misgivings". The observers concluded: These factors cast a cloud over the electoral process". They observed, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has already reported, that the Electoral Commission's performance improved dramatically—I suppose we can be grateful for small mercies—although the report argues that the chairman's background and his earlier performance in the office, might have undermined perceptions that the election would be supervised in a manner that was free and fair". The Commonwealth observers' report also high-lights the difficulties involved in evaluating elections in those terms, although it became clear to the team that, some aspects of the elections were not fair". The team's concerns relate to the inadequacy of the vote registration process in many parts of the country and significant weaknesses in the nomination process for candidates.

The report also observed that the Electoral Commission fulfilled its designed role in the last weeks of the campaign. The observers also noted—the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to this—the partisanship of the state-owned radio and television and the reluctance of the government to delink themselves from the KANU party.

Finally, as we have already heard this evening, the Commonwealth observers were particularly concerned about KANU's resort to violence and intimidation in the Rift Valley, President Moi's own heartland, and in the north-eastern province. That resulted in 16 KANU candidates being returned unopposed. I understand that the opposition parties are appealing against those unopposed elections; but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

Despite those anxieties, the report falls short of condemning the elections outright. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quoted the conclusions and I do not wish to repeat everything that he said. Perhaps I may quote a couple of lines. The team concluded, we believe that the results in many instances directly reflect, however imperfectly, the expression of the will of the people. It constitutes a giant step on the road to multi-party democracy". Had I been drafting I would have been inclined to leave out the word "giant". In the circumstances such hyperbole seems a little misplaced. The election, although flawed, is at least a small step in the right direction. I fully understand the anxieties of the Commonwealth observers about declaring the election to be neither free nor fair. Nevertheless, after the catalogue of failures that we heard of from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, it is essential that lessons are learnt from the election so that everything possible can be done to ensure that its imperfections do not apply to the next one.

In that regard I endorse everything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It is unclear whether the Kenyan Government take seriously the reported irregularities or whether they will be responsive to suggestions for the need, for example, for the training of election officers. I hope that the UK Government made clear that they are concerned about many aspects of the report.

Meanwhile, we need to ask what can be done to put pressure on the Kenyan Government to implement parliamentary democracy. President Moi's decision to prorogue Parliament is alarming. Perhaps the Minister can say whether she received a convincing explanation on her recent visit and also whether she was given any indication of when Parliament would be recalled. President Moi's failure to appoint any opposition leaders to government posts must also be a considerable cause for anxiety since that means that the country's most powerful and politically active tribes—the Kikuyus and the Luo—are not represented in government. The election revealed that support for President Moi is down to a mere 2.5 per cent. in the Kikuyu homeland.

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House whether President Moi has held talks with opposition parties or whether he still believes that he can govern in defiance of them. I assume that she met representatives of the opposition during her recent visit. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that and say to what conclusions she came with respect to their anxieties in regard to the election.

Since Kenya is one of the largest recipients of UK aid, receiving more than any other African country according to 1990 statistics, with only India and Bangladesh as larger recipients, the UK Government are in a strong position to put into practice in Kenya their commitment to linking aid to good government. I note that aid to Kenya averaged £49.4 million between 1988 and 1990 but went down to £29.3 million in 1991. I am unclear whether that is a reflection of the failure to sustain good government or whether there are other reasons. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that and at the same time indicate what the level of British bilateral aid is expected to be in 1992–93.

Turning to the resumption of lending provisions to Kenya by the international community, will the Minister agree that that should be delayed until there is clear evidence that President Moi's Government will both uphold democracy and respect human rights? On the second of those points I understand from Amnesty International that all the political prisoners of which it is aware have been released from gaol but that 30 government opponents are still facing charges, including sedition, and that no date has been set for their trial. Nor have there been any investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners. There have also been allegations that Somali refugees—most of whom are women, children and the old—have been mistreated in Kenyan refugee camps and threats have been made to deport them. Any light that the Minister can throw on those questions would be helpful.

Clearly there is a great deal at stake in Kenya in the next few months following the elections. We must expect more than we have seen so far from the opposition if it is to act as an effective coalition as well as from the government. But President Moi must bear the major responsibility for the deterioration of his country and its image abroad. Once a role model for Africa with a successful economy and political stability, it now faces an economic crisis. But, above all, its reputation has been damaged by a corrupt and autocratic government. Kenya's 26 million people deserve better than that. We owe it to them to use our influence to help bring about the political change necessary to restore Kenya's reputation.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and all of your Lordships for your contributions to this debate. The elections were held in Kenya on 29th December. They marked an important watershed in Kenya's recent history, reflecting the wider trend towards political reform and greater democracy which we have seen sweeping across many parts of the world—as many would say, not before time.

Periods of fundamental change are always accompanied by risks and opportunities. Britain, as one of Kenya's closest friends, was keen to do all that it could to help minimise the risks and maximise the opportunities. The Commonwealth, I believe, approached its responsibilities towards Kenya in the same spirit of friendship and support.

Since the Commonwealth Secretariat was first invited last April to send an observer team to the elections, it tackled the task at hand with a commendable degree of diligence and dedication. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it was not an easy job. When long entrenched political landscapes and attitudes begin to shift, suspicions run high. But I commend to your Lordships the report before you, which, in our assessment, constitutes a balanced piece of work and illustrates clearly the positive and the negative aspects of the process.

As noble Lords will be aware, I visited Kenya 10 days ago both to see the problems of the north-east and to talk to President Moi and several of his Ministers. I had also asked to meet leaders of the opposition parties, but my invitation was accepted only by Mr. Kenneth Matiba—leader of FORD-Asili —and two colleagues. We had a good meeting and I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said about Kenneth Matiba whom I too have known for some time though not as long as he. I am sorry that the leaders of the two other main parties refused a discussion. I always recall a phrase taught to me 25 years ago by the late lain Macleod. He said, We may not agree, but we should never fail to listen". It seems a worthy maxim for any disputed matter, especially in the politics of Africa. I was glad therefore to have a good talk with Mr. Robert Shaw, a senior adviser to FORD-Kenya.

My colleagues in the Foreign Office and I had met all the leading opposition figures in the run-up to the elections. We took every opportunity to make clear that Britain had no hidden political agenda. We were genuinely impartial between the political parties and we remain so. We are not, however, impartial about the need for democracy in Kenya. Kenya is one of the few African Commonwealth states in which there has been a continuity of constitutional civilian rule since independence. The move away from a one-party state represents a shift of historic importance. The opposition now have a major stake also in the parliamentary system. I sincerely hope that both they and the governing party will recognise the importance at this stage in Kenya's history of adopting a policy of reconciliation and tolerance. For my part, I will continue to keep my door open to any leading Kenyan politician who wishes to see me. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that I have urged both on the opposition and members of the Government that dialogue between government and opposition is the only way to succeed for Kenya's sake. I implored them to put Kenyan people and the needs of Kenya for growth and stability first and above their party political attitudes.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the elections were not perfect. There were serious flaws, recognised by all those who took part in the observer exercise. We are indeed grateful to him and his colleagues from this country and indeed all the observers who went to Kenya. Yes, the report is critical of the election process, but all equally agree that there were no grounds on which to declare the whole proceedings null and void. On the contrary, the elections represented a major advance for the democratic process in Kenya. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concluded his speech with the last paragraph from the Commonwealth observers' summary, which sets out the matter very well. They spoke of the first step on the path to multi-party democracy. I had some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she said "giant step" on the road to multi-party democracy, as on page 40 of the report. It was not quite as giant as all that and it is interesting that the summary says "first step".

I want to pay tribute too to the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, and his staff at the Commonwealth Secretariat. They really should be praised for the enthusiasm they have shown and for their efforts to encourage the process of democratisation in the various countries where Commonwealth observer groups have been present. I probably know better than most just how difficult that can be. Their contribution to the democratisation process in Kenya has been invaluable and the advice and guidance that they were able to give to the Kenyan authorities led directly to the many improvements in the electoral environment there and indeed to the fact that things had improved by the end of the process and polling day compared with how they were at the beginning. Of course any report receives criticism too, but I still believe that this report and their assessment were frank and fair.

I note that there was a high degree of consensus among all the observer groups on Kenya. None found any evidence of organised fraud. The electoral irregularities were documented in considerable detail. The International Republican Institute from the US concluded that, the electoral environment was unfair and the electoral process seriously flawed. We question whether all Kenyans were able to fully express their will—although millions did—but from our perspective we feel that this process is a significant step in Kenya's transition to genuine multi-party democracy". There was one other group which has not been mentioned in the debate and which I was fortunate enough to meet in Nairobi last Monday. It is the National Election Monitoring Unit, the Kenyan domestic monitors. It reached similar conclusions. NEMU performed a valuable role throughout the period and in general exerted a constructive moderating influence. That continued, I am glad to say, after the election. NEMU is working for dialogue between the parties and is helping to foster positive attitudes towards the parliamentary process. Whatever else we do I hope it may be possible to encourage NEMU in its idea of a foundation for democracy in Kenya. That is something that I undertook with their leaders to look into with support from this country. The monitors were very impressive indeed. It cannot have been easy for them to have gone to the lengths that observers from outside the country, knowing that they could simply return to their own countries after the election, did. These monitors live, breathe and work in Kenya all the time. I am glad to say, too, that the report I had from the European Community Heads of Mission broadly supported the Commonwealth observers' view. So despite the criticisms, I do not think that there is any difference of opinion about the direction being correct.

My concern all along has been not only that the elections should be held but that they should be as free and fair as possible. That was why I made sure that we gave a considerable amount of practical assistance, including providing all the ballot boxes. We did indeed train some key electoral officials although we could not train all of them by any manner or means. We provided some office equipment to the Electoral Commission which had absolutely none at the beginning. In addition we made a significant contribution through the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Commonwealth observer team. But we remained absolutely impartial as between the parties and continue to do so.

I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, regarding the serious concerns about the campaigning environment in the run-up to the election. Your Lordships will see from a Written Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on 14th December, at col. WA 19 of the Official Report, that I made clear our concerns then. I have made them clear not only in this House. I made sure that those views were very well known in Kenya.

A number of comments have been made rightly about the Electoral Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made some, as did the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Brentford. The Commonwealth observers' report highlights the various problems associated with the conduct of the commission, particularly its lack of transparency and also its concern about the perceived role and credibility of its chairman, Mr. Justice Chesoni. The report also makes clear the damage done to the commission's credibility by the wide speculation regarding the chairman's fitness for office, by its role in the attempted shortening of the electoral process, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and in its initial reaction to grievances over frustrated parliamentary nominations. However, the report recognises a significant improvement in the end in the commission's performance in the latter stages of the campaign. All the allegations are covered in the report but the Commonwealth observers say that in the last three weeks there was a marked improvement. We can therefore believe and know that we were actually quite effective in what we were doing as observers on the Electoral Commission. We just wish that it had happened sooner.

There has been the most regrettable violence in Kenya, particularly last year, and in the Rift Valley. The tribal clashes, particularly between the Kalenjin and the Luo and the Kikuyu, for which government and opposition blamed each other, are a very bad situation. More effective security measures are needed. Some, taken by the middle of 1982, lessened the impact of the clashes but there was still sporadic violence and inter-tribal fighting right up to the election and even some real trouble afterwards. One of the issues I raised with President Moi last Monday was indeed the need for the Government impartially to administer law and order and to bring the perpetrators of violence to book.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen any sign that that view prevails? Have any charges been brought against those who were responsible on either side for violence during the election campaign?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I do not believe that it has been possible to gain sufficient evidence. As the noble Lord may well know, collecting evidence when tensions are so high has been a matter of real difficulty. It is one of the reasons why I was advising President Moi in the way I did—that this matter has to be gripped by the Government regardless of party and regardless of tribal allegiance.

A number of your Lordships have referred to the role of the media and its importance. It is also something which we have repeatedly underlined to the Kenyan Government. It is something which the national electoral monitoring unit wish to follow up. We shall see what can be done to assist them in that matter.

Your Lordships also asked about events which have happened since the election, particularly the suspension of parliament. When parliament convened on 26th January in Nairobi it was within the 90 days of its dissolution (28th October) and therefore within the constitution. At that time the elected speaker swore in members and business was duly completed. It is normal Kenyan practice for parliament then to be suspended as it was on 27th January. I can further tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that we expect to see the Kenyan Parliament resume some time in March. Obviously it is not within my gift to give a specific date.

Perhaps I may now turn to a number of other matters which are outstanding following the election. My noble friend Lord Brentford, in his very interesting speech and kind remarks, for which I thank him, asked me about contested seats. There are up to 90 seats in total that are currently the subject of electoral petitions, and that includes the seat of the president. These contests come from all parties, including inter-opposition party petitions. So there is a general petitioning going on which alleges malpractice by fellow opposition parties as well as KANU. That is a matter of concern to be resolved as quickly as possible. I have pressed that the petitions be heard without delay.

There were two or three comments made during the debate about the United Kingdom being rather slow to act. Given that, for the past seven years—with the exception of a very short break in the middle when my right honourable friend William Waldegrave was looking after Africa—I have been responsible for African matters, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and your Lordships that at no time have we ceased to try to push Kenya forward to a sensible democratic system with good government. After the many years I have been dealing with Africa I know that one needs infinite patience in these matters.

However, we made it absolutely clear in 1990 (long before 1991) that economic reform was essential if Kenya was ever to get on top of her problems. We also made it quite clear that political reform was essential. We may not have shouted it from the top of the mango tree, but we certainly made sure that it was said. Therefore it is not right to charge that the United Kingdom joined in only after others had made the case. We have given no balance of payments support over the past year. I made it very clear to President Moi early in 1992; again when we met at Rio in June, in September last year and also a week ago, that there will be no further balance of payments support from us or any other donor until there are satisfactory results from the discussion with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

My noble friend Lord Brentford asked me for some detail about that. There will be a meeting of the fund representatives in Nairobi next Monday. We sincerely hope that the important measures that are needed will be completed. The Kenyan Government need to tighten monetary policy. They need to get on with their civil service and para-statal reforms as well as completing a number of other undertakings which they gave to the international financial institutions as long as a year ago. They have made progress on the political front, but, as was made quite clear to them in 1991, they have also to make progress on the economic front. Whatever may be the criticism of the IFIs occasionally in Kenya, I stress that we are asking no more of Kenya than we have of other countries in the region.

In balance of payments support Britain has always moved in line with the bank and the fund. It is quite clear to see in Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia. I repeat that there will be no new balance of payments support until Kenya reaches agreement with the bank and the fund. That means getting back on to the right economic path. We hope we shall see positive signals soon because that will be good for Kenya and for Kenyans. Certainly the donors will pull together.

There has been much emphasis placed in the press comment on the Kenyan elections upon irregularities identified by the Commonwealth and other observers and these have been highlighted tonight. Some have suggested that these were so serious that the election should be declared invalid. I do not share that view. For all the problems identified in the Commonwealth and other reports, the fact remains that millions of Kenyans turned out on the day and were given an opportunity to express their views on their future government.

The return of President Moi and his party was not the result of systematic rigging, or even of the malpractices described in the Commonwealth report, but of the division within the ranks of the opposition. Critics should hear in mind that no other country within a thousand miles of Kenya has given its electorate a similar opportunity to express its views. I believe that your Lordships' House and others should avoid making the best the enemy of the good. It may be that it could be better, but first time round in the right direction means that we can help them to make it better the second time round when those elections Come.

We warmly welcome the report of the observer group and entirely endorse its conclusions. We thank the Commonwealth for the invaluable role it has played in Kenya over the past year. I watched with some trepidation when Kenya embarked on the difficult process of political reform, but I loudly applaud the Kenyan people, because polling day passed off without serious incident and they had a democratic election. That fact is to the lasting credit of all Kenyans. Being the first multi-party elections since 1966, it has undoubtedly been a step forward for democracy in Africa as a whole and, we hope, an influence on others.

Nobody must be under any illusions about the imperfections in the process. So we strongly urge that those grievances of whichever party, arising out of the electoral process, are dealt with properly by petitions and resolved speedily. We will ask them to learn from the lessons that we find in the elections. We have made those thoughts clear to members of the government. But we also hope to see further progress in the de-linking of the party of government from the state apparatus. That is particularly important for the media. The opposition parties must be given reasonable access to put their views across.

So we have called on all sides, but primarily the government, on whom the main responsibility lies, to get on with those jobs but also to condemn unequivocally all ethnic violence and to take effective action to put it to an end once and for all. A climate of genuine constructive dialogue with the opposition parties will set the right tone. Now is the time for all Kenyans to consolidate the achievement built on the gains which have been won and make party politics work. Although that will take time, I believe that we shall see a fully-fledged democracy emerging. That democracy needs roots, patience, hard work and realism. It does not just happen overnight. It is a long and gradual evolution. I am confident that Kenya has embarked upon that road and deserves our support. Perhaps I may close by thanking once more the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for initiating this debate and for the role that he has played, along with so many others, in helping Kenya forward.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can answer my question about British bilateral aid. I am most grateful to her for addressing so many of our questions, but I wonder whether she can comment on that point.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I have already partially commented on that, but since this Unstarred Question was about the electoral process I felt that it was important to concentrate on that in my reply. I have already told the House that we have not given any balance of payments support for the past year plus. I can tell the House further that in 1988 we provided some £20 million of balance of payments support. As I have said, that is no more. However, we continue to try to help some of the important reforms to be achieved. That is how in 1991–92 our figure rose to about £29 million—I am speaking from memory here. When one considers that this is the sort of help that is being given to the people of Kenya through education, veterinary projects to control the tsetse fly and medical help (as well as in many other basic ways), one can be quite sure that that aid is both going to the people who need it and doing the job that is needed.

What I have refused to do is to allow any money to go into the central government for some two years. That is a decision that I am still not prepared to make until such time as I am convinced that there is a proper programme with the fund and the bank. However, we have of course helped the Kenyans who have been victims of drought. Indeed, we have spent over £9 million bilaterally and through our share of EC action on that. Only last week, on finding the situation in the Turkana region so bad for Kenyans, we announced a contribution of £0.75 million through Oxfam to help the people in the north west.

Perhaps I should add that, notwithstanding their own economic difficulties, the Kenyan Government have spent a great deal of time and resources trying to help the almost unstemmed flow of refugees. I have seen for myself on many occasions the security problems which have arisen from refugee camps in the north east of Kenya and I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not just women and children who have crossed the border. There has been a major security problem for the Government of Kenya. Although I recognise that the return of refugees to their own country may be a priority for Kenya, when I saw President Moi last Monday I urged him to work closely with UNHCR on this problem because it must be tackled in a balanced and considered way. Unilateral action will do Kenya no credit and will not help the refugees. We continue to help the refugees in the north eastern province also.

Our programme has continued for the sake of the people. It has not continued with the government. In addition to the constant pressure from the donor community, that is the one action that I believe has concentrated minds enormously on the steps towards political democracy.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.