Rigathi Gachagua dismisses NCIC probe, says it's being used to shield Aden Duale

• Rigathi Gachagua dismisses NCIC probe, accusing government of politicization
• Gachagua defends his comments as political metaphors, not hate speech or incitement
• NCIC's investigation may set a precedent for regulating public discourse in Kenya
• Lawyers warn about the implications of using figurative language in political communication
• Gachagua vows to continue criticizing President Ruto and his allies despite attempts to silence him

He said anyone aggrieved by his remarks should seek legal redress in court rather than rely on the commission.

Rigathi Gachagua, former Deputy President and leader of the Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP), has dismissed the National Cohesion and Integration Commission's (NCIC) investigation into his comments, labeling it a politically motivated attempt to divert public attention. The probe is seen as an effort by the government to silence Gachagua through State institutions. Addressing supporters in Buuri, Meru County, Gachagua defended his remarks, insisting they were political metaphors and not a call to violence.

Gachagua's comments sparked widespread outrage, prompting the NCIC to open investigations into his statements. However, the DCP leader claims that the move is an attempt to shift attention away from the backlash over Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale's remarks. Gachagua alleged that Duale made offensive comments against the Mt. Kenya region by referring to its people as hyenas.

The NCIC's investigation into Gachagua's comments may set a precedent for the commission's role in regulating public discourse, raising concerns among lawyers about the implications of using figurative language in political communication.

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) is an independent body established to promote national cohesion and integration. However, Gachagua has accused the commission of being an appendage of the government, rather than an independent entity. This raises questions about the NCIC's impartiality in investigating hate speech cases.

In Kenya, hate speech laws are primarily governed by Section 13 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act. Section 132 of the Penal Code, which previously criminalized 'undermining authority of a public officer,' was declared unconstitutional in April 2017. The law also provides for the prosecution of individuals who make statements that promote hatred or intolerance towards others.

Gachagua's use of metaphors and figurative language in his comments has sparked debate about what constitutes hate speech. Lawyers may need to advise clients on the implications of using such language in political communication, and whether it can be considered incitement.

The NCIC's investigation into Gachagua's comments has sparked concerns about the politicization of public discourse. The move is seen as an attempt by the government to silence opposition voices through State institutions.

Gachagua's defiance of the probe and his continued criticism of President William Ruto and his allies have raised questions about the limits of free speech in Kenya. The case highlights the need for a clear understanding of what constitutes hate speech and incitement, and the role of independent bodies like the NCIC in regulating public discourse.

The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future investigations into hate speech cases, and has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on the use of figurative language in political communication.

Lawyers may need to advise clients on the implications of using figurative language in political communication, and whether such language can be considered hate speech or incitement. They should also be aware that the NCIC's investigation into Gachagua's comments may set a precedent for the commission's role in regulating public discourse.

Source: Original reporting via The Daily Nation