A growing number of Kenyan lawyers are calling for the removal of the “tribe” field from official charge sheets, arguing that it serves no legal purpose and fuels ethnic profiling. This push, gaining traction in recent months, reflects a wider national debate about identity, discrimination, and justice in Kenya’s legal system.
Why Is “Tribe” on Charge Sheets in the First Place?
The inclusion of one’s tribe on charge sheets dates back to colonial administrative systems. The practice was originally used by British authorities to track and categorize native populations. While the country gained independence over six decades ago, remnants of such outdated structures still linger—tribe fields on official documents being one of them.
Today, many see this as a relic with no place in a modern, democratic society. Legal professionals argue that including tribal identity on a charge sheet offers no legal advantage. Instead, it risks influencing judicial proceedings by introducing unnecessary bias, particularly in a country where ethnic tensions have historically led to political violence.
Legal and Ethical Arguments
Lawyers advocating for the change argue that the “tribe” field violates constitutional rights, especially those related to equality and non-discrimination. The Constitution of Kenya, under Article 27, guarantees equal treatment and protection under the law, regardless of ethnicity. Including tribal identity in criminal records may subtly undermine this principle.
Moreover, critics say that identifying a suspect’s tribe on legal documents promotes ethnic stereotyping and can skew public perception of certain communities. In high-profile cases, tribal identification has even led to community-wide stigmatization.
Institutional Resistance and Public Opinion
While the legal community is voicing strong concerns, some government officials and law enforcement agencies have resisted the change. They argue that the information can sometimes assist with investigations. However, critics counter that such reasoning is outdated and does not justify systemic profiling.
Public opinion is increasingly aligned with the lawyers’ stance. Many Kenyans are questioning why tribal identity should be a factor in judicial matters at all. Civil society groups, human rights activists, and ordinary citizens are beginning to rally behind the call for reform.
What Comes Next?
Legal petitions have already been filed with the courts, and pressure is mounting on the judiciary and the Attorney General to take action. If the courts side with the lawyers, Kenya may soon see a major shift in how suspects are processed through the justice system.
Removing the “tribe” field from charge sheets might seem like a small change, but its implications are wide-reaching. It’s about stripping away a layer of systemic bias and moving closer to a truly impartial legal system.
In a country still healing from past ethnic divisions, this reform could be a step toward deeper national unity and trust in the rule of law.
