Nairobi — Assorted security challenges have prompted the Inter- Governmental Authority on Development member countries to initiate joint security operations to tackle terrorism and other organised crimes.

One such challenge is the restitution that law enforcement agencies within a given country respond unilaterally and in competition with each other, and yet security challenges to the region have increased.Secondly, the region is yet to agree on a common definition of terrorism because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The best example is the Al-Shabaab in Somalia that is seen by outsiders as a terrorist organisation while they consider themselves as engaged in a just war of Jihad.

"Although we agree on post-blast management, we add very little value to member countries who have their own experience and knowledge over terrorism. Our region is volatile because of Somalia but incidents have reduced.

This means that states have strengthened their capacity," said Abebe Muluneh, the acting head of the Igad capacity building programme against terrorism.

Training

The programme includes joint training of security agencies, sharing of information on best practices, and identifying the needs of law enforcement agencies across the region.

Igad is dealing with a range of transnational security threats, among them the prevalence of domestic and international terrorism, while the region is increasingly beset by transnational criminal activity some of it potentially funding political extremism.

Apart from terrorism, other security challenges facing Igad member countries include organised crime such as human and drug trafficking, illicit smuggling and trafficking of small arms and migrant smuggling (organised and connected to groups in the Sahel and Maghreb, criminal groups in southern Europe, and the Arabian Gulf as well as extremist group in Yemen).

But the immediate security challenges making the region vulnerable are the situation in Somalia, the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict, the Eritrea-Djibouti conflict, and the current growth of extremists in Yemen.

Other threats include the lingering political and security challenges in Sudan, the poor governance situation in the region, proximity to the Middle East and effects of returnees' from Afghanistan and Iraq, unresolved political differences and culture of intolerance and the unresolved insurgent movement.

According to Samuel Sserwanga, senior analyst with the Igad Capacity Building Programme Against Terrorism, Igad countries have managed to reduce the impact of piracy in the region and border management has been enhanced but not to the optimum levels, because of the long and porous borders. Kenya and Ethiopia share a border stretch of 800 kilometres.

The Igad Capacity Building Programme against Terrorism (ICPAT) is now in the second stage to promote information sharing. ICPAT was launched in 2006 to implement the decisions of the heads of state of member states meeting in Khartoum, Sudan in 2002.

The first step was to focus on building the national capacity on counterterrorism and other organised crimes, promote information sharing and training and then focus on enhancing regional co-operation.

However, member countries within Igad have been slow in national legislation against terrorism, and even slower in ratifying international legal instruments against terrorism. Out of the 16 UN legal instruments against terror, Kenya has ratified 14, Sudan and Djibouti 12, Uganda 11, Ethiopia 7, Eritrea one and Somalia none.

That is why the final phase of the programme will focus on the adoption and ratification of international and regional legal counterterrorism instruments, strengthening national laws and legislation, and ensuring the implementation of laws while building judiciary capacity to handle terrorism cases. The close co-operation will also rely on the Igad Convention on Extradition, which means the surrender of a person accused or convicted of an extradition offence from a requested state party to a requesting state party.

However, one Igad member state can refuse extradition request from another on the basis that the offence for which extradition is required is of a political nature, the person will be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatmen or if the requesting state has not abolished the death penalty or the extradition appears to be based on grounds of race, color, religion or ethnic origin).