2 disability experts paints a grim picture on the BBI report “why the disabled Kenyans always fall into cracks” Authors: DR Siyat Abdi and Mugambi Paul.

According to the World Bank, WHO and the United Nations One billion people, or 15% o

f the world’s population, experience some form of disability.
Persons with disabilities, on average as a group, are more likely to experience adverse socioeconomic outcomes than persons without disabilities. Such as less education, poorer health outcomes, lower levels of employment, and higher poverty rates.

Barriers to full social and economic inclusion of Kenyans with disabilities include inaccessible communication, navigating the physical environments, inaccessible transportation, the unavailability of assistive devices and technologies, non-adapted means of communication, gaps in service delivery, utter unemployment inequality and generally discriminatory prejudice and stigma in Kenyan society.

From our professional lenses and in-depth analysis, we observe that the voice of this largest minority was never hard on the BBI 156-page report.
Notwithstanding, understanding the influence of different stakeholders in public policy making is very Critical “Carolyne 2016].
Although the BBI Taskforce had lots of public network in executing some of the insisted public approaches [Carolyne 2017], the task force did a total disservice and provided just a window dressing of Kenyans with disabilities.

In our collective opinion, the first omission and a major setback was the lack of representation of persons with disability in the BBI task force for persons living with disabilities.
This affirms the incessant notion of the government of Kenya of not ensuring article 54 of the 2010 Kenyan Constitution is realized.
Our expectations were high, and therefore, we expected the Taskforce would provide a clear direction on accessible representation that responds to the needs of persons with disability.

Secondly, on behalf of all Kenyans with disabilities who are the largest minority, we affirm the term “Disability” appeared 9 times in the BBI Report.
This was not in reference to any commitments to the 9-point agenda in their Terms of Reference but giving basic information of the experiential circumstances people with disability find themselves in Kenya.
In other words, the task force deliberated on the historical background on issues regarding persons living with disabilities without offering any commitment on how the nation will address the historical and traditional social injustices encountered by person with disabilities in Kenya.
Instead, the Taskforce echoed the common cliché we are used to by outlining traditional principles which clinically failed to work in the past.
No doubt, the BBI task force affirms what Paul Mugambi said in one of his articles, emphasising why the disability movement in Kenya must change tact once and for all!
http://www.mugambipaul.com/2019/11/17/why-the-disability-movement-in-kenya-should-stop-crying-faw/.
Increasing inclusivity on a political, economic, social, religious, cultural, youth, and gender basis is not Inclusivity devoid of disability.
How long are we going to continue being marginalised both in the national government and in the Counties?

It is worth noting the reflective theoretical commitment of Kenya to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development goals.
It affirms clearly that disability cannot be a reason or criteria for lack of access to development programming and the realization of human rights.
Additionally, the SDGS framework have already been integrated in both short- and long-term Kenyan plan strategies, but limited wheels of implementations are in actions.
Its significant, to pronounce that the SDG framework has seven targets, which explicitly refer to persons with disabilities, and six further targets on persons in vulnerable situations, which again include persons with disabilities.
The SDGs address essential development domains such as education, employment and decent work, social protection, resilience to and mitigation of disasters, sanitation, transport, and non-discrimination – all of which are important obligations for the Kenyan government.

Unfortunately, the BBI task force team clearly seem to have been communicating to persons with disabilities in the charity model.
This is to mean the expressions reference to persons living with disabilities seem to be a separate group from Kenyans and this shows that there was exclusion in addressing persons with disabilities in the BBI report.
Thirdly, the term inclusion appeared 24 times.
The only relevant was the 22nd mention.
The cruel irony is that Article 174(e) of the Constitution provides that one of the objectives of devolution in Kenya is ‘to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and underserved or discriminated-against communities.’
It is for this reason that the Taskforce strongly feels that measures leading to greater inclusion, equality, equity, and basic fairness at the National level should be mirrored in the Counties, both in law, policy and administration.”
Do you think people with disability will enjoy this commitment?

Fourthly, the term Physical access has been mentioned twice and the 2nd one is relevant to persons with disabilities.
Increase physical access for people with disabilities into buildings, particularly public ones, and transport.
This shows the limitation of the BBI report since it’s not just enough to talk of physical access of built environment and transport only.
Kenyans living with disabilities still need more in area of universal and accessible housing, employment opportunity, and access to building (public and social facilities), communication and access to adaptive technology among many other disability services.
Fifthly, the term “has access” has been mentioned 42 times in the report.
The only relevant area is the 2nd mention. “
The aim should be for all Kenyans to have to cover the same distances to access public services.”
The access to information seems to be one of the major recommendations for the BBI task force but they avoided to demand for alternative accessible formats which could have ensured those with vision loss (blind), those with cognitive disability and other print disabled access information.
The BBI task force would have well utilized the Marrakesh treaty as a benchmark on access to information with excellent literature support from the United Nation Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD).

The BBI report missed opportunities to present across several mechanisms on enhancement of rights of people with disability in Kenya:
For instance, we anticipated that they would have an opportunity to present a structured Social protection systems that would be barrier-free and inclusive, and in a manner which ensures that everyone has equal opportunities to access social protection schemes, which may require special measures for particular categories of the population who may face additional barriers, such as persons with disability and the elderly Kenyans.
They missed to articulate the structure and design implementation of social protection, taking into account Human rights principles and standards at every stage of the schemes in the context of the level of marginalisation experiences of persons with disability both in the national government and in the Counties.
We welcome the Taskforce proposal to change the County Executive, including, but not limited to, the running mate of every candidate for the position of Governor.
While it is commendable to suggest consideration of the opposite gender, window of opportunity should have been given for any governor to decide their running mate, and if possible opportunity to make informed decision to pick a person with a disability as a Deputy Governor.
Another missed opportunity was to empower the National council for People with Disability NCPWD to be elevated a disability commission instead of a semiautonomous body incapable of servicing people with disability.
This could be either through a referendum or by legislation which could have subsequently ensured that the disability commission is well resourced and has the capacity to provide appropriate disability services based on social model and ensure the realization of disability rights.

On a positive note, the beauty of the BBI report is the importance of public participation and engagements. We hope people with disability will be fully engaged in decisions that matter to them.

In conclusion, the BBI report seem to have nailed the coffin for persons with disabilities by claiming that people with disabilities in Kenya are bunch of winchers, always complaining of injustices.
It seems the task force doesn’t understand that people with disabilities in Kenya are tired of the prolonged injustices experienced.
Yes, we must complain and continuously complain because we don’t expect civil and political elections of representatives in Party primaries and nominations to be fair; free and transparent elections in the context of persons with disability.
We must raise our voice because we are severely marginalised both in the national government and in the Counties in terms of employment and social services.
We cannot be satisfied with the BBI solution of just using reputable private recruitment companies to help, but to put in place recruitment legislations that give Kenyan people with disability opportunity to exercise their skills and talents to maintain their livelihood.
What the Kenyan people with disabilities need is real tangible implementation of legal and policy frameworks and ensuring persons living with disabilities actually access all government and private services just like any other Kenyan.

The views expressed here are for the authors and do not represent any agency or organization.

DR Siyat Abdi
Is a independent disability consultant.
Mugambi Paul is a
Public policy diversity and inclusion expert.

Public participation event

address to the public on importance of engaging disabled persons

Twelve Crimes of being disabled in Kenya Author: Paul M. Mugambi.

Twelve Crimes of being disabled in Kenya
Author: Paul M. Mugambi.

Twelve Crimes of being disabled in Kenya
Author: Paul M. Mugambi.

1. Only in Kenya where most government documents are written “physically challenged” in reference to persons with disabilities.
2. Only in Kenya both Government and private sector demand for a driving lisence even when they know Blind and Deaf-Blind persons will never drive on the Kenyan roads. Thus, denial of employment opportunity.
3. Only in Kenya we pay for the long and dreary processes of acquiring the disabled card while the national identity card is readily available and its free.
4.
Only in Kenya where government service providers one has to explain his or her disability before service is offered or denied. I wonder if other non-disabled citizens undergo this trauma.
5. Only in Kenya where Kenya revenue Authority demands renewal of tax exemption certificates to the disabled persons as if the permanent disabled persons got a miracle. You wonder why Kenya claims to be an IT herb while the KRA system can’t just update itself.
6. Only in Kenya where the invisible disabled persons are not recognized and lots of explanation is done.
7. Only in Kenya persons with disabilities have to organize themselves to educate service providers of their roles and responsibilities in service delivery to disabled persons.
8. Only in Kenya where most government offices are either inaccessible or located in inaccessible places.
9. Only in Kenya most government websites are in accessible and do not offer alternative formats in documentation.
10. Only in Kenya where most public and private adverts are written “Persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply” but they don’t take any extra measure to ensure disabled persons are brought on board.
11. Only in Kenya where disabled persons pay for the “disabled car sticker” for packing and even the disabled packing is already occupied by the non-disabled individuals.
12. Only in Kenya where disabled artists, musicians, sportspersons beg for government or private sector sponsorship to participate in both local and international events and obligations.

The views expressed here are for the author and do not represent any agency or organization.
Paul Mugambi is a public policy and diversity and inclusion expert.

Reprogrammable braille could shrink books to a few pages”  

Reprogrammable braille could shrink books to a few pages
Elastic bits with memory could eliminate the need for gigantic volumes.

Jon Fingas, @jonfingas
07.24.18 in AV
Braille hdisplays have made the digital world more accessible to those with vision issues, but readers who prefer the portability of a book haven’t had
that upgrade. Even a typical book might require over a dozen volumes of braille paper, which rules out reading during a summer vacation. Harvard researchers
could shoon whittle that down to a far more convenient size, though, as they’ve crafted reprogrammable braille that could eliminate the need for unique
pages without the bulk of a display.
The concept is straightforward. The team compressed a thin, curved elastic shell using forces on each end, and then made indents with a basic stylus (similar
to how you print a conventional braille book). Once you remove the compression, the shell ‘remembers’ the indents. You can erase them just by stretching
the shell. It sounds simple, but it’s incredibly flexible: in its tests, Harvard could control the number, position and chronological order of the indents.
There’s no lattice holding it up, and it works with everything from conventional paper to super-thin graphene.
This is still rudimentary. While you can store memories in the shells, you can’t perform computing tasks with them. You’d need a more sophisticated platform
to control page changes. If that happens, though, braille books could be considerably more accessible. That could be helpful for long trips where you’re
searching for something to read, but it might also be incredibly valuable for schools that could easily send braille literature home with students.
Harvard’s concept for reprogrammable braille
Bottom

Economics of disabilities; what we’re not told Kenyan story

July 24th 2018 the UK government, in partnership with Kenya and the International Disability Alliance (IDA), co-hosted the first ever high level global
disability summit in London. The aim of the meeting was to galvanise global efforts to address disability inclusion.
The summit brought together more than 700 delegates from governments, donors, private sector organisations, charities and organisations for persons with
disabilities. Mr Ukur Yattani, the Cabinet Secretary for Labour and Social Protection led the Kenyan team.

Globally, one out of every seven people live with some form of disability, the majority in low and middle-income countries. In these settings, disability
is both a cause and consequence of poverty because people with disabilities often face significant barriers that prevent them from participating fully
in society, including accessing health services and attaining education and employment.

According to the World Health Organisation, about six million Kenyans are persons with disabilities. The Kenya National Survey for Pwds, 2008, says nearly
80 per cent of these six million people live in rural areas where they experience social and economic disadvantages and denial of rights. Their lives are
made more difficult by the way society interprets and reacts to disability. In addition to these barriers, Kenya still lacks a policy that operationalises
laws on disability. The National Disability Policy has remained as a draft since 2006!

But let us look at disability from different frames. Have we thought about the significant contribution in the economy made by people with disability as
consumers, employers, assistive technology developers, mobility aid manufacturers and academics among others? According to Global Economics of Disability,
2016 report, the disability market is the next big consumer segment globally — with an estimated population of 1.3 billion. Disabled persons constitute
an emerging market the size of China and controlling $1 trillion in annual disposable income.

Do people working directly in these industries pay taxes? Does anyone have an idea of the revenue — direct or indirect— collected by government from disability
industries, organisations, import duty charges on assistive devices and other materials used by persons with disabilities? What of the multiplier effect
of the sector; transporters, warehouses, and PWDs themselves who are active spenders and who pay both direct and indirect taxes.

SH40 BILLION

Just look at it this way; six million Kenyans (going by WHO’s estimate) are persons with disabilities and its assumed about two million of them are wheelchair
users. The cheapest outdoor wheelchair fabricated locally is about Sh20,000, translating to a staggering Sh40 billion! Imagine the rest using crutches,
hearing aides, white canes, braille services and costs of hiring personal assistance. Undoubtly, this is a huge market.

The contribution of people with disabilities far outweighs what is allocated to them through affirmative/charity considerations.

President Mwai Kibaki signed The Persons with Disabilities Act, 2003, in what turned out to be the most unprecedented disability legal framework in Kenya.
The Act led to creation of a State agency called the National Council for Persons with Disability. During his second term in office (May 2008), Kenya ratified
the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.

MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION

One fact that most people have glossed over is the allocation given to the National Council for Persons with Disabilities, compared to the contribution
made by PWDs to the social, political and economic spheres in the country. But then, in Kenya, studies to ascertain the actual contribution of disability
as a sector have not been conducted.

We must change the narrative of disability for us not to leave out this vibrant community in development and other spheres of life. Disability must be
viewed not as a burden but as a part of diversity, like any other. Disability is not about someone’s impairment but rather about a barrier – environment
and attitudinal – in front of this person to freely and meaningfully participate in the society.
By a Guest writer
HARUN M. HASSAN