“Poised for Growth: Community Radio in Kenya in 2009” was a joint study project seeking to assess the current status of community radio in Kenya in order to design a program for OSIEA to work with local partners to build the capacity of the community radio sector. As the Chairperson of the Kenya Community Media Network (KCOMNET) I supported our then Coordinator to join the study as Co-Researcher. In the intervening period, the Coordinator lost favor with the Network and resigned in a huff but did not relinquish her research role as should have been logical. Consequently, at a stakeholders’ forum on May 18, 2010 in Nairobi the rogue Coordinator and the Principal Researcher a South African presented the outcomes of the study to OSIEA and several community media stakeholders. In the report statements, generalizations, rationalizations, and inferences were made that demeaned KCOMNET. The report was unprofessional and outright offensive in its diction. In one of my rare moments of public outrage, I have never made such strong statements in recording my reservations and defending the integrity of an institution I had given so much. I want to share this heavy diatribe here to offer some lessons to many who keep asking, what is wrong with civil society and social movements? What intrigues go on behind the scenes that we never see that impinge on our ability to deliver? Are professionals impartial? What are the politics that preface the beautiful projects that we implement in society? I reproduce this letter here in full and take responsibility for mentioning names 15 years later. I am available to answer any questions and receive comments that will entrench lessons from this story in generations that will come after me in the development sector. EDITOR

May 31, 2010

Mugambi Kiai,

Progamme Officer

Open Society Institute for East Africa

P O Box 2193-00202

Nairobi

Kenya

Dear Mugambi,

Re: Poised for Growth: Community Radio in Kenya in 2009

Hope that this letter finds you in good health.

I write to correct the wrong impression that the report “Poised for Growth Community Radio in Kenya in 2009” creates with regard to KCOMNET in various paragraphs. I raised these issues at the stakeholders meeting and had a one on one meeting with Jean Fairbairn the lead researcher but clearly we did not make progress in arriving at a just conclusion that would satisfy the constituency of KCOMNET. The Kenya Community Media Network (KCOMNET) was approached by OSIEA to team up with Developing Radio Partners (DRP) to undertake a joint study project seeking to assess the current status of community radio in Kenya and design a program for OSIEA to work with local partners to build the capacity of the community radio sector. Following acceptance to participate in the study Doreen Rukaria then KCOMNET Coordinator was seconded as a co-researcher. As work on the research progressed Doreen Rukaria lost favor with the KCOMNET Steering Council and this led to her hasty resignation as Coordinator. We verily believe that her resignation terminated her secondment by KCOMNET to the task. Ideally she should have forthwith stepped down from the position and KCOMNET would have been asked to provide a replacement in the spirit of the contract.

Unfortunately this did not happen. The principal researcher takes the view that issues leading to Doreen’s resignation were not made clear to her before the research was commissioned and therefore they proceeded believing that KCOMNET was strong and active and that Doreen had been tasked by KCOMNET on the basis of her strengths. The lead researcher further adds that as soon as the issues in KCOMNET became clear she took over all interviews relating to Econews and KCOMNET in order to ensure fair reflection. She agrees that Doreen’s resignation terminated her secondment by KCOMNET and substantially changed the joint arrangement from a contractual standpoint. The undertaking that the lead researcher takes personal responsibility for interviews related to KCOMNET and Econews does not cure the conflict of interest arising from Doreen’s participation. In spite of the background above the report of the study was unveiled at a stakeholders’ forum on May 18, 2010 at the Panafric Hotel in Nairobi. On behalf of KCOMNET I wish to register our strongest reservations and opposition to statements, generalizations, rationalizations and inferences that depict KCOMNET in overall negative light. The choice of diction is clearly out of step with accepted professional practice, uncalled for and outright offensive. It is apparent that the conflict of interest apparent from the participation of Doreen in the project without further reference to KCOMNET has compromised the integrity of the study and I must say that unless a very clear addendum is made of our exceptions we may have no choice but to publish a disclaimer and seek directions from a third party to protect the integrity of our institution. That aspects of the report have been given to OSIEA without full disclosure suggests that KCOMNET may have been prejudiced even further.

I had occasion to speak with the lead researcher at the launch to raise the features of the report that I found offensive and aspects of the research process that I felt compromised the outcome of the study. Apart from being generally defensive, the lead researcher did not feel the slightest compunction to admit that there could have been inconsistencies in the report. She avers that she shoots straight, is direct and therefore had attempted to be very kind to KCOMNET. She asserts that she spoke to Matu Nguri the then Chair, Grace Githaiga and Lynne Wanyeki both founder members of KCOMNET, and Peter Aoga, the Director Econews and that all of them confirmed that KCOMNET was dormant an assertion which from my quick verification has been refuted. The lead researcher suggests that she tried to reach me and that I avoided her something I find extremely far fetched and actually childish. I found it extremely condescending when the lead researcher telephoned me and her opening statement was “I understand that KCOMNET is dormant, so I wanted to meet with you to get some facts”. Why would I disgrace myself to meet with a researcher who has formed such an opinion?

KCOMNET questioned its chair and coordinator on the manner in which the two provided leadership. Under their tenure the network had lost much of its ballast, was a pale shadow of its former self. The Coordinator in particular was over bearing, took actions that embarrassed the leadership of the network including moving the network secretariat without reference to the council. The two had been signing blank cheques and this placed the council’s fiduciary responsibility in an awkward situation. The two had failed to give a proper account of the funds of the network. It became crucial that measures are taken to arrest these internal issues. Invariably such moments do come with far reaching consequences. Doreen carted away several documents that belong to the network and has refused to hand these over including financial information, cheque books, and contracts between KCOMNET and DRP among other things. This latter action is tantamount to committing a crime. These are the matters that led to Doreen’s resignation and subsequent elections and change of office bearers. Since then the network has revamped its office, conducted its strategic plan and received a small grant to continue supporting the development of community media in Kenya. As far as the report is concerned we wish to bring to your attention the following matters; On the Executive Summary part 4.5 titled Representative Bodies “the absence of a sense of identity is partly a result of past weakness and more recently, growing competition, among existing or would-be representative bodies. The oldest organization claiming to represent community radios is KCOMNET. Although KCOMNET can take much of the credit for positive developments in the legal environment at the time of writing most stations had not heard of or did not know much about KCOMNET, and were not members. At the time of writing, new agencies were starting up, but they were also generally unknown to the stations.”

… “The absence of a representative body and the likelihood of ongoing competition for the role is problematic”

Having read the report we find this statement bizarre. Mangelete is the oldest community radio station in Kenya and its association with KCOMNET is well documented even in the report. If the stations are mostly new should anybody wonder that they do not know about KCOMNET. The words “claiming to represent” seeks to portray KCOMNET as a fraudster or some kind of an impostor. We have not seen in the questions to stations where they were specifically asked if they had heard about KCOMNET, this conclusion that most did not know or had not heard is therefore an opinion of the researchers. As far as membership to KCOMNET is concerned this is voluntary. The claim that new agencies were starting up is questionable. There is only one new agency not agencies registered in 2009 by Doreen Rukaria the Co-researcher known as AMNET to represent commercial, community and public media. To document representative bodies and claim by the same token that there is none or that there is competition for the role is disgusting. On page 14 the reports asserts: “High staff turnover at stations means that institutional memory is not always there to be tapped”. This position is however not linked to the assertion that the stations did not know KCOMNET conveniently so we think.

On page 52 “at the time of our research, there was no single organization representing community radio stations in Kenya, and at least three organizations – possibly – more were contesting the terrain”. This contest is a creation of the researchers. On page 53 the report continues, In addition to starting EACMP, ENA was instrumental in founding the Kenya Community Media Network (KCOMNET), in 1996. This statement is incorrect. The correct position is that KCOMNET was a creation of a sub-regional conference on community radio in eastern and southern Africa that was held in Nairobi in 1995 at which Kenyans in attendance constituted a caucus to discuss how community media could be nurtured and launched in Kenya. ENA agreed to play host to the fledgling network whose membership had media training institutions, practitioners and human rights and social justice institutions. In fact Kenya Institute of Mass Communications agreed to provide secretariat support to the network and use of their training frequency to provide training to community groups.

There has always been mutuality and convergence between ENA and KCOMNET where KCOMNET deals with advocacy and lobbying for the sector and training of community communication groups while ENA finds resources to pilot and experiment with community radio in East Africa. Through the EACMP the ENA navigated difficult regional terrain, many lessons were learnt, lessons which the report smothers and examines rather casually. EACMP had a life of its own and was never tied to ENA permanently. On page 53 third last para … “This has been a strength of KCOMNET and the perception is that KCOMNET (with ENA) was the key player in winning recognition for community broadcasting in Kenya”. Whose perception is this? Is it a perception because it concerns KCOMNET? Why should research be so opinionated? What did research find or what made it difficult to make a finding as whether KCOMNET or ENA or both played a key role in winning this recognition? Why write with tongue in cheek? In the next para … “At the time of writing, however KCOMNET was also at crossroads. KCOMNET had been formed by ENA with the intention that it should become independent. However lack of proper management structures and overlap of activities led to prolonged dependence on ENA. The ENA Executive Director was also KCOMNET Coordinator and there was no clear separation of the roles of ENA and KCOMNET in relation to community media development”.

The assertion here is wrong. The relationship between KCOMNET and ENA was always symbiotic one playing host and secretariat to another, the network. KCOMNET had never wanted to compete with its membership of which ENA was one. The first director of ENA was Wangu Mwangi followed by Wagaki Mwangi, then Oduor Ong’wen before Grace Githaiga took over in 2006. Grace Githaiga was KCOMNET Coordinator when the network was founded then she was working with KIMC. She was then succeeded by Jennifer Njiru who did this work together with Ezekiel Okello before Doreen Rukaria took over. To make assertions like the one about the Director of ENA coordinating KCOMNET is clearly out of step. Which director and when? We object to the inclusion in the report the claim that KCOMNET had moved for temporary accommodation at Pamoja FM. This move was not sanctioned by KCOMNET’s steering council and was thus illegal. The Coordinator always knew that she was a volunteer but was paid if the network raised resources for specific activities. We cannot take responsibility for suggestions that KCOMNET’s infrastructure was owned by ENA, the Coordinator has not given a proper account of assets she lugged away to Pamoja FM without reference to her employer. To date she has not done a handing over and still holds cheques and other documents that belong to the network. On page 54 the report says “Throughout its long existence, the KCOMNET board had not been formalized at an AGM. At the time of writing, leadership structure was a 10-member Interim Committee which met irregularly, after workshops and other activities, ostensibly to save costs that might be incurred by organizing separate meetings. The majority of committee members were not active. The last AGM was in 2003, and another was being planned for October/November 2009”

KCOMNET is registered under the Societies Act and has a file at the Registrar of Societies. In law every registered society must file returns and a full list of its officials complete with minutes of meetings held every year. The claims in this paragraph is outright malicious and should either be withdrawn completely or the researchers confirm with the relevant authorities the veracity of the assertions to correct the wrong impression that this creates. Placing us in conflict with the law is clearly what we did not expect from a research task that had every opportunity to verify and confirm facts. In the second last para … “From its constitution, it is clear that AMNET aims to become a regional umbrella body. KCOMNET might for example, join AMNET as a corporate member. At the same time, individual community radio stations might also join AMNET. Presumably the key advantage of joining AMNET would be that its “alternative” media remit (which includes commercial media) is broader than KCOMNET’s community media remit and that it will operate at a regional rather than national level”. We read the mischief here. Researchers using their position to promote an outfit in which they have personal interest. Is this a mistake? Clearly when I put this to the lead researcher her answer to me was that she was more critical of AMNET than she was of KCOMNET. That she personally takes responsibility for all the comments made about KCOMNET as she took over the interviews concerning KCOMNET and ENA. This claim does not cure the conflict of interest dilemma. The only remedy that would have cured this would have been for Doreen to step aside or full disclosure of the study be made available to us or our views contained herein be published in the report. How can anyone posit that KCOMNET could join AMNET on the basis of its regional nature or alternative media remit without running the risk of being seen as partisan? Who said there were no regional networks, was this fact also examined by the study? Who said commercial media lack representation and support that should concern supporters of community media?

We at KCOMNET are alive to the ideology aspects of community media that for example make the inextricable link between social justice issues and movements with community communications natural. That is the reason we commune with broader communications groups beyond radio. To suggest to us that we should be joining a group that purports to organize commercial radio and lump them with community radio is insensitive. The most abhorrent matter though in this matter is the incestuous relationship that civil society so invariably finds itself. You resign from KCOMNET, form AMNET and use KCOMNET’s goodwill to participate in a research on which you stand to benefit by demonizing your former employer and praising your new outfit. And with a thick skin even suggest that the new outfit that has not been tested is good for the older one.

Kenya must have its own unique community radio identity with a uniquely Kenyan network not some ill conceived regional outfit. What is the motive of the view on page 60 to the effect that “Stations that had heard of KCOMNET and its host organization, ENA had also heard about the internal organizational and financial problems, and questioned ENA and KCOMNET’s value and their competency to develop community radio stations?” First this statement confirms that stations had heard about KCOMNET and ENA in sharp contrast to the assertion that this had not been the case. What this confirms is the bias with which this research was carried out. So that if they have heard about KCOMNET or ENA then it must be for the wrong reasons, financial problems. It is supposed to be understood here that KCOMNET is interchangeable with ENA and therefore problems at ENA are necessarily KCOMNET’s problems. This is clearly in bad taste. Having read the report intensively we are convinced that it fails the test of objectivity and fair play. The commentary on KCOMNET is full of vendetta and we know where this is coming from. It taints an otherwise very timely endeavor. With the revelation on page 66 that “Specific recommendations to OSIEA are contained in a separate document,” We have every reason to believe that it is possible that the recklessness exhibited here could have found its way into the recommendations which the researchers have made.

It will be difficult to have faith in such a process and to have KCOMNET’s name penned as a partner in this research goes against the tenets of partnerships. What the report mutes in the pioneering role that KCOMNET played is the fact that community radio in Kenya must link durably with the creative sector and voice so that the oral tradition makes a transition to radio. This is a link KCOMNET long discovered and nurtures. The report also give a really casual glance to the need for a conference between commercial broadcasters and community broadcasters especially as this regards training and staff flight and poaching. The report further represents the attitude of policy in Kenya erroneously as friendly. If the media environment is vibrant it must be situated in its proper context that the country has had a rough and troubling past. From an era when media repression was the byword through media raids, control of film and stage plays, banning of publications etc. The off-air initiatives are mostly frequencies being held by politically correct individuals who are holding these for speculative purposes.

In conclusion we wish to state here that events at the stakeholders meeting suggested that there are clear and deliberate attempts to lead the sector in a certain direction. It is only the KCOMNET representative who did not know that there were plans to inaugurate the AMNET network and have radio stations present join the network. Of itself KCOMNET has never had any problem with the formation of new networks but to suggest as was done at the meeting that KCOMNET purports to represent stations and is a Nairobi outfit that operates from hotels went overboard. This view is what the report echoes and the facilitator a Mr. Franklin Huizies abetted this banter.

Yours Sincerely

Patrick Ochieng

Chairman

CC:

1. Jean Fairbairn Lead Researcher DRP Washington DC
2. Doreen Rukaria AMNET Kenya
3. Peter Aoga ENA Kenya
4. Njuki Githethwa EACMP NairobiAll KCOMNET Steering Council Members
5. KCOMNET Steering Council Members

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us