abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
NGO Rejoinder

30 Sep 2021

Author:
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC)

KHRC’s rejoinder to Kakuzi's response to SLAPPs research

[...]

First, I would like to confirm that Kakuzi did withdraw the frivolous suit in July as stated in their response. However, the matter is still in court, although marked as withdrawn, as we are arguing for costs which Kakuzi is opposed to...

We do not believe that the suit was withdrawn on the basis of good will by Kakuzi. We are convinced that the move to withdraw the suit was occasioned by the fact that we were able to put in a strong defense against the SLAPP suit and were willing to go the whole hog in the legal battle. Also, we remain aware that the withdrawal was a desperate attempt by the company to regain the lost UK market.

I also confirm that Kakuzi wrote to us ... asking that we produce to the authorities the evidence we had against the company. Of course we did not oblige this request because, 1) we partnered with a UK law firm and successfully brought claims against Camellia... In this suit huge amounts of evidence were presented which occasioned Camellia to call for an out-of-court settlement, 2) we have witnessed elements of corporate capture in which case most of the local security organs, especially the police and local administration, operate at the behest of the company...

Corporate capture is also seen in the manner the company uses security apparatus to reign terror on dissenting voices... Although we welcome the redress initiatives that Kakuzi is currently instituting, we have been on record terming it as too little too late because the company failed, in the first instance, to proactively manage the adverse human rights impacts that can be traced back to itself...

Kakuzi has perfected the art of weaponizing the law to silence its critics... Currently, several HRDs engaged in the campaign to hold Kakuzi accountable have received information from reliable sources that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations will be commencing investigations against them for couching witnesses and fabricating evidence against the company in the UK case. Such investigations would be malicious as they are unfounded...