COMMUNITY APPROACHES THAT SUPPORT DESISTANCE:MEETING OF PURPOSE: THE CCPO AND THE SPECIALTASKFORCE ON CHILDREN MATTERS – A KENYAN STORY
Hon. Lady Justice Teresia Mumbua Matheka *I. INTRODUCTION: THE GOOD LAW…RECOGNIZING that the child occupies a unique and privileged position in the
African society and that for the full and harmonious development of his personality,
the child should grow up in a family environment in an atmosphere of happiness,
love and understanding,
RECOGNIZING that the child, due to the needs of his physical and mental
development requires particular care with regard to health, physical, mental, moral
and social development and requires legal protection in conditions of freedom,
dignity and security…, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the virtues of theircultural heritage, historical background and the values of the African civilization
which should inspire and characterize their reflection on the concept of the rights
and welfare of the child, CONSIDERING that the promotion and protection of therights and welfare of the child also implies the performance of duties on the part ofeveryone… 1
The Kenyan Children Act 2 domesticates this Charter bringing home the requirement
for legal protection while taking into consideration the unique and privileged position of
the child. This calls for performance of duties by everyone to ensure the promotion andprotection of the rights and welfare of the child. To achieve this the law requires that thebest interests of the child shall be of primary consideration in all actions concerning thechild undertaken by any person or authority. 3
When it comes to the child in conflict with the law, the welfare of the child offendermust be taken into consideration during trial and any detention must only be of the last
recourse and for the shortest time. 4,5 Further, Article 17(3) 6 states that the essential aim oftreatment of every child during trial and also if found guilty of infringing the penal law
shall be his or her reformation, reintegration into his/her family and social rehabilitation.

Judge, High Court of Kenya at Nakuru, Kenya.
Preamble, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
2
Act no 8 of 2001.
3
Section 4 Children Act, Article 4 ACRWC.
4
S. 187 Children Act Consideration of welfare (1) Every court in dealing with a child who is brought
before it shall have regard to the best interests of the child and shall, in a proper case, take steps forremoving him from undesirable surroundings and for securing that proper provision be made for his
maintenance, education and training.
5
Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 53(1) Every child has the right: (f) not to be detained, except as ameasure of last resort, and when detained, to be held— (i) for the shortest appropriate period of time; (2) A
child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
6
ACRWC.
*
1- 133 - 133 -II. FACING THE REALITY: SEEKING HOME GROWN SOLUTIONS
Serving as a children Magistrate in the early years of the Children Act, the law and thereality on the ground were different. There was lack of awareness of its existence among
the agencies that were required to implement it. This was because at that time the statute
had to be printed at the Government Printer, purchased and distributed to the agencies. In
addition, even when they became aware of the law, its implementation was a challenge.
The law had created a complete paradigm shift in the manner in which children in contact
or in conflict with the law were required to be treated.
There were challenges. Pre-trial detention was used as a form of punishment, cases
were delaying in court, committal to rehabilitation school, and Borstal Institutions werefirst often choice despite there being a raft of non-custodial options. Children were still
being held with adults in adult institutions, there was no collaboration among the agencies,
inadequate referral systems, and reintegration programmes/post supervision and upon
release from these institutions, there was no referral system, and use of social inquiry
reports was limited. There was inadequate involvement of the family and community infollow-ups for child offenders in institutions. They carried a stigma which led to rejection
upon release, and reoffending to enable return to their “safe” space. Some of these childoffenders continued reoffending until they ended up in adult prison.
Under the new regime, cases were required to be finalized within 3 to 6 months andSocial Inquiry Reports were required as a mandatory prerequisite to orders regarding thechild. Institutionalization of child offenders was discouraged as first line of treatment, theconsideration of the welfare and the best interests of the child offender at all stages of thecriminal trial from arrest to post-trial supervision required the involvement of the family
and the community, making the use of social inquiry reports inevitable. New forms oftreatment like counselling required bringing on board new stakeholders.
To breathe life into this law, and to create the requisite visible, accessible juvenile
justice system required the creating of awareness of the law and its new approach(knowledge), the procedure of its implementation and the how to (skills). There was also
the important question of the “why” of the law to address the need for a complete attitudechange towards child offenders. This required the understanding of who a child was under
the new regime and why it was necessary to treat them differently.
This realization led me as the Children Magistrate in Nakuru at the time to create theChild Protection Team, a multi-agency team made up of the key stakeholders in the juvenile
justice system. It consisted of the police, who held the tripartite roles of the arresting,investigating and prosecuting officers, the Departments of Children and Protection & After
Care Services, the Prisons, because they ran remand homes (before the new law) and the
Borstal Institutions, and were holding youthful serious offenders, the Rift Valley Law
society, because they were providing pro bono legal services to child offenders, theCharitable Children Institutions to whom we sent child victims for shelter, care andprotection.

- 134 - 134 -The Child Protection Team became the focus group for creating awareness on the newlaw , the why and how of its implementation. of sharing the status of the children in thesystem within the jurisdiction of the children court, statistics, 8 how long cases took, theadherence to the standards set by the law in handling child offenders and the need to ensurethat offenders were not kept together with adults, advocating for separate cells within police
stations, for the child offenders who were arrested and had to spend time at the police
station. The CPT met monthly, and the main goal was to collaborate so as to expedite thecase to prevent the contamination by serious offenders held at the police stations, and eventhe remand homes, while at the same safeguarding their welfare through the use of Social
Inquiry Reports to enable return to home or school or other placement, on for instance,some form of supervision.
7

This worked very well in my jurisdiction, and a juvenile justice system began to emergethat was based on the best interests of the child and welfare of the child offender.
It was while doing this that I was selected to join the Country Focused Delinquent
Treatment Systems training at UNAFEI.
Prior to this I had attended local workshops that tried to address the gaps in knowledge,
skills and attitude in the implementation of the new law.
The training at UNAFEI was mounted by the Government of Kenya in collaboration
Government of Japan through JICA and UNAFEI. Teams of officers from the five key
Juvenile Justice Agencies (JJAs) 9 attended the one-month training and were expected to
implement what they learned when they returned.
In 2009 the idea was born that there was need to bring this training home so as to include
more officers and hence increase the impact.
Professors from UNAFEI conducted Training Needs Assessment, from the five JJAs,
from whom a team was selected to come up with a curriculum and training manuals. The
Child Care and Protection Officers Capacity (CCPO) Building Curriculum was developed
and launched. A team of Training of Trainers (TOTs) was trained, and a National
Implementation Team was put in place. There were five thematic areas:
•
•
•
•
•

Procedures in juvenile justice;Case management;
Rehabilitation/treatment;
Support networking;
Ethics, self-care, responsibility and quality assurance.

For instance, because of lack of availability of the Act to Police Stations, we made copies of the relevant
Rules and distributed them to the officers in charge of the stations. It made it easier to hold them to account
if they violated the same. Eg the requirement to release the parent child on police bond instead of detaining
the child.
8
E.g. how many children were in the Remand home, how long they had been there, how many cases forreview of bond terms, how many child offenders in transit to rehabilitation schools and Borstal Institutions,
how many children in adult prisons? (And it was important to find solutions.)
9
Judiciary, Police, Department of Children Services, Probation and After Care Services, Prison Services.
7- 135 - 135 -The training required that Magistrates, Police, Children, Probation and Prison Officers
sit in the same class and learn from the same curriculum. It was four pronged: theory, thedrawing of work plans, followed by the practicum in teams and supervision.
Impact of training
 Broke down the bureaucratic barriers
 Made all officers realize that at any one stage they were dealing with the same child,and there was need to have same standards.
 Enhanced knowledge, skills, and attitude change towards child offenders
 Use of Social/Reports involvement of family and community
 Development and use of treatment plans, exit strategies for institutions
 Expeditious disposal of cases
 Enhanced collaboration through the CPTs and development of support networks
 Development and strengthening of referral systems
 Post-institutional supervision, The development of Through Care Guidelines
 Overall better service delivery for children
III. CHALLENGES AND MORE HOME-GROWN RESOLUTIONS
The pilot training took place in 2010. In 2015 the CCPO project came to an end due tofunding problems. There was also the need to review the curriculum after the 2010
Constitution. The new Constitution brought changes to the Children Act. The rights of thechild were now protected in the Constitution. 10 There were new institutions as well. Oneof them was the National Council on the Administration of Justice 11 chaired by the Hon,
the Chief Justice.
One of the mandates of the NCAJ was to ensure the establishment of Court User
Committees in all the courts across the country. For clarity, these CUCs are modelled on
the CPT where the specific users of that court come together to deal with issues related tothat court; hence, they are not intended for children courts only but for the whole court, The
Magistrates Courts, the High Court at various stations in the country. Now we have court
user committees for even the specialized courts: Family, Criminal and Commercial
Divisions at the High Court at Nairobi, Environment and Land, Employment and Labour
courts.
At the same time the number of new officers entering the system from all the JJAs had
increased. The police set up changed. There was now the Directorate of Public Prosecutions,and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. The juvenile justice system had changed.
There was need to regroup and retrain as things were falling back to the bad old days.
The Judiciary saw the need to take stock. In 2016, the then Chief Justice the Hon. Justice
Willy Mutunga as the Chairperson of the (NCAJ) appointed the Special Task Force on

Article 53.
The National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) is established under Section 34 of the
Judicial Service Act (No. 1 of 2011). It is a high-level policymaking, implementation and oversight
coordinating mechanism as reflected in its membership comprising State and Non-State Actors from thejustice sector.
1011- 136 - 136 -Children Matters (the TF) headed by the Hon Lady Justice Martha Koome, judge of the
Court of Appeal. The TF had 16 Terms of Reference which included:
 Review of the status of the child in the administration of justice Review the laws, policies etc. on administration of juvenile justice Development of training policy and review of the curriculum for persons who
handle children in the justice system.
The Task Force completed most of its work by 20 November 2019 and launched in its
report 12 on its findings and recommendations to reform the Juvenile Justice System. The
Task Force did not just make recommendations.
1. Entrenched and strengthened Children Court Users Committees which are styled
on the model of the Child Protection Team. These CCCUCs were the focus for the
research on the status of the child in the administration of justice within the
Jurisdiction of the Children Courts where the TF visited.
2. The CCCUCs were also trained on the rights of the child in an effort to address theknowledge skills and attitude gap in the implementation of the Children Act.
3. The CCCUCs were the drivers for the reduction of case backlog of children cases
through the Service Weeks 13 established by the TF. During Service Weeks there istraining of the stakeholders, counselling of the children in contact /conflict with thelaw, discussions with the community on the rights of the child, and the emphasis on
prevention of juvenile delinquency, public barazas with members of the public,
their local leaders, and members of the TF of service delivery for children in thejustice system within the jurisdiction being visited. In view of the vast diversity ofcultures, traditions, social, economic situations and challenges in theimplementation of the Children Act across the country, local solutions to issues aresought for ease of implementation by the local CCUC. There is emphasis on the useof non-custodial measures and rehabilitation, the reintegration of child offenders
back into the community.
4. Visited Children Institutions and caused immediate changes in those that were notabiding by the new law
5. Reviewed the Children Bill 2020 and together with other stakeholders pushed forits legislation. It was passed by the cabinet on 25 February 2021 and forwarded to
Parliament. The new law seeks to establish the juvenile/child justice system, raises
the age of criminal liability from 8 to 12 years, entrenches the multi-agency
framework (the CCCUs), and non-custodial modes of dealing with childrendiversion, plea bargaining and ADR among others.
6. Developed a policy on training. Adopted and reviewed with the help of UNAFEI
and JICA the CCPO training curriculum and launched it on 17 February 2021. Thisis key because the CCPO programme found a home under the NCAJ ensuring that
it will be implemented by the JJAs.
<https://ncaj.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NCAJ-Report-Digital-Version.pdf>.
Service Weeks are weeks set aside in the court calendar when the courts and the stakeholders concentrateon children’s cases.

1213- 137 - 137 -7. Developed guidelines for Children Courts
8. Developed guidelines for JJAs during the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure access tojustice for children
9. Sourced laptops and internet connectivity for the remand homes so as to ensure thatcases for children in custody could still be heard during the pandemic.
IV. WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO WITH COMMUNITY APPROACHESTHAT SUPPORT DESITANCE?
1. It takes a village to raise a child, 14 and asiyefunzwa na mamaye hufunzwa na
ulimwengu. 15 We also say that it is the sapling stage of a tree that is flexible
otherwise it breaks. The CCCUCs are one way of bringing the village into thejuvenile justice system to re-create the social support system that came with thevillage and has been taken away by both urbanization and the formal legal system.
2. The involvement of the family and the community is at the centre of prevention
against both the offending and reoffending by children. Through the CCCUC there
is emphasis on the responsibilities of the authorized officers: the chiefs, the children
and police officers; the collaboration of teachers and community leaders.
3. The membership of that CCCUC must have the requisite knowledge, skills andattitude to be able to raise the children who come through the system; there must be
standards and levels of accountability, hence the need for training.
4. The CCCUs form a safety net for the child who comes into the system, and for the
one who is outside it to protect them from entry into the system where possible.
This is through the referral systems, collaboration and networking.
5. The CCPOs are a core team of well-trained officers who are found within and across
the JJAs. Among them are TOTs. They provide necessary guidance, training andsupport where necessary. They are members of the TF, CCCUs across the country.
They occupy various positions in government as judges, magistrates, police, prisonand probation officers. They are a network among themselves and take every
opportunity to provide input on the improvement of the juvenile justice system.
They will definitely be playing a major role in the new changes from our various
positions.
6. So the future is here for the Kenyan child. With the above in place, therecommendations of the TF, and the implementation of the same, the New Children
Act on the way, the new training policy and CCPO curriculum, we should findourselves with few or no reoffending cases.
7. Thank you UNAFEI for this opportunity to share a bit of the Kenyan story on how
networking and collaboration can change things for child offenders.
African Proverb.
The Swahili Proverb, He who is not raised/ trained/ taught by the mother will be taught by the rest of theworld, is used for those persons who either refuse parental training or do not get it and end up in trouble.

14
15- 138 - 138 -