National and international responses to planned mass evictions in Nairobi: Lessons and challenges

Ashfaq Khalfan and Paula Galowitz

In February 2004, various ministries in the Kenyan government announced an unprecedented series of mass evictions that threatened over 330 000 residents of informal settlements in Nairobi. The prospect of this wide-ranging violation of housing rights led various Kenyan and international groups to start a campaign to resist the evictions through direct appeals to the government, the local and international media and the donor community, as well as through litigation. The combination of these efforts put pressure on the Kenyan government to suspend the evictions. However, recent statements by individual ministers indicate that the threat of evictions remains. A new threat to informal settlements

The planned evictions threaten some of the most vulnerable people in Kenya. Over two million people inhabit 168 informal settlements in Nairobi. They comprise 55% of the city's population yet occupy only 5% of the total land area in the city. The target of planned evictions is the largest settlement, Kibera, which has an estimated population of 750 000, at least 90% of whom 'rent' their homes. They live in cramped conditions, with limited or no access to piped water, sewage systems or garbage collection.

In December 2002 the newly elected government declared that it would respect the right to adequate housing as a human right. Accordingly, it enacted a National Housing Policy that included the upgrading of slum areas, and entered into an agreement in January 2003 with the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) to upgrade the informal settlements in Nairobi, starting with three villages in Kibera. Although this development was welcomed, the project did not make provision for consultation with residents.

In February 2004, a number of ministries appeared to break with the above policies. The Ministry of Public Works, Roads and Housing declared that it would evict all structures illegally built on land set aside for road reserves in order to build a bypass road. The Energy Ministry announced that it would evict all persons occupying land near power-lines on the grounds that the area was not safe. The Kenya Railway Corporation (KRC) announced that it would evict all persons within 100 feet of the railway for safety reasons. The Ministry of Local Government announced that it would demolish all structures built near roads. A survey by local groups showed that 330 000-400 000 persons would be affected by the cumulative evictions.

Residents knew that the threats of eviction were serious. In 2003 the government showed remarkable resolve in achieving its objectives. For example, it demolished houses in wealthy suburbs built illegally on public land. In the case of the current demolition, however, this resolve was going to destroy a large number of people's homes. On 8 February, a village of over 2 000 people in Kibera was demolished while most of the residents were at church. The government's surveyors then began marking red crosses on the houses, schools and religious institutions that were to be demolished in other parts of Kibera.

A storm of protest: civil society responds
The threatened mass evictions have led to sustained national and international campaigns by Kenyan non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community organisations. In early February, the KUTOKA Network of Catholic Churches in the informal settlements of Nairobi and NGOs such as Kituo Cha Sheria, Shelter Forum, Maji na Ufanisi and Pamoja Trust, among others, joined together to oppose the planned evictions.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Housing, on mission to Kenya at the time, publicly challenged the government on the evictions. International NGOs, from countries as diverse as Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Brazil, South Africa and India, wrote to the Kenyan government and to the local and international media.

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) wrote to the government, warning it of the evictions' potential to breach Kenya's commitment under international human rights law and its goal to reduce poverty. It pointed out the social and economic cost of forced evictions, including deeper poverty, reduced levels of employment and lower health standards. It was noted that the upcoming displacement could affect the security of the area, particularly since disputes in Kibera over rent levels and ownership rights had previously led to violent conflicts with an ethnic dimension.

Even influential donor governments, international organisations and international religious institutions made their concerns about this issue well known to the Kenyan government.

The government's response: an uneasy suspension
The Kenyan government announced on 29 February 2004 that it had suspended evictions in Nairobi's informal settlements until plans had been made to resettle those who would be uprooted.

In spite of this apparent victory, contradictory statements from the ministers involved have left residents in suspense as to what will happen next. The day after the suspension was announced, the ministers of Roads and Public Works stated that the suspension did not apply to the demolitions related to the construction of the bypass road. The Minister for Energy also subsequently announced that the demolitions near power lines had only been suspended. On 29 April, the Minister for Energy warned in Parliament that demolitions would resume soon, on the basis that the suspension would remain for only 10 weeks in order to give people time to move and to give the government time to develop its policy on demolitions. However, he also indicated that the ministry was willing to negotiate with structure owners to move power lines at their cost.

From these statements, it appears that there is a lack of coherence within the Kenyan government on issues affecting housing rights. An inter-ministerial committee chaired by the Vice-President has been established to discuss the planned evictions, but has not yet shown signs of activity.

There have been positive developments in relation to the planned demolitions of homes near railway lines, which would affect 108 000 people. Kituo Cha Sheria brought a lawsuit in February 2004 against the KRC on behalf of affected residents. The court ordered the KRC and the residents to enter into negotiations. Pamoja Trust, a local NGO, arranged for representatives of the KRC to visit sites in India where resettlement had occurred. On 26 April 2004, the KRC agreed to formally withdraw its eviction notices pending re-settlement plans by the government.

Representatives of COHRE visited Kibera in March. They, along with a number of local NGOs, met a representative of the Department of Housing and visited the planned eviction sites. They found that the majority of Kibera residents live in intolerable and, in many cases, unsafe conditions, even though most of them are tenants and pay high rentals to the owners of their dwellings. Many residents agreed that a certain degree of voluntary relocation to alternative sites would be required to address the problems they face. However, it was equally clear that using forced evictions would be counterproductive and cause even more suffering than people are enduring at present.

Lessons and challenges
The challenge in Kibera is therefore to ensure that the government comprehensively applies a moratorium on evictions until it can design and implement a national policy that is consistent with international human rights standards. It is necessary to ensure that all levels of government, including the local administration, are aware of and adhere to these standards. However, preventing evictions is only an emergency and preliminary step in addressing the housing situation in Kibera. It is necessary to carefully consider a variety of solutions to improve the situation. Resettlement of at least some people will be necessary.

A key challenge will be to ensure that such remedial programmes truly consult with the residents and that they meet their needs with regard to housing, proximity to places of work, schools and social services. Such programmes must also address the lack of secure tenure for the residents, which has reduced their ability to invest in improving their housing situation.

Reform efforts must also empower and strengthen community governance structures, which are weak due to decades of centralised government administration that selected neighbourhood leaders.

The lessons of the campaign against the evictions will not be fully realised until the Kenyan government comes to a decision on the balance between housing rights and its development and safety goals. However, three provisional lessons emerge.

Firstly, the campaign has given some respite to those threatened by evictions and has forced the government to concede, at least, that there must be adequate re-settlement for those displaced. It also demonstrated the possibility of launching a multi-faceted campaign at very short notice.

Secondly, although there was no centralised leadership or co-ordination, messages sent to the government were consistent and mainly based on housing rights contained in international human rights law.

Thirdly, many of those involved included largely human rights institutions. While some have questioned the extent to which a rights-based approach to development adds any value, this campaign has shown that, at the very least, human rights actors bring energy and initiative and can show results in the struggle to ensure adequate housing for all.

Ashfaq Khalfan is a Legal Officer in the Right to Water Programme, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. Paula Galowitz is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and a Clinical Professor of Law, New York University.