When Security Wears a Ballot Mask: Reading the Politics Behind NGAPU

By Dr. Luchetu Likaka – Researcher and Political Analyst

If you have been around for a while, you develop a certain political memory. You begin to recognize patterns: when reforms are urgent, when institutions are suddenly “strengthened,” and when the language of service delivery is quietly repurposed to serve power.

It is from this long-view perspective that one cannot help but read malice or at least calculated political intent into the enactment and formal gazettement of the National Government Administration Police Unit (NGAPU).

On paper, the move appears benign, even commendable.

The formal gazettement of NGAPU is framed as an effort to reinforce grassroots security by supporting Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs, enforcing government policies, and providing security at public functions.

The Ministry presents it as evidence of continued commitment to community-level security, improved coordination, and better delivery of government services at the local level.

These are noble objectives, and in a country grappling with insecurity, few would openly oppose strengthened local administration.

But politics is not read from policy briefs alone; it is read from timing, history, and context.

Timing, History, and the Electoral Context

The consolidation of security functions around the provincial and national administrative apparatus is not new.

What is new and deeply concerning is the timing and political environment in which this gazettement has occurred.

With the 2027 general elections looming, any expansion, formalization, or restructuring of state security at the grassroots level must be subjected to intense scrutiny.

Kenya’s electoral history teaches us that administrative units closest to the people are also those most vulnerable to politicization.

Administrative Power Meets Coercive Force

Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs occupy a uniquely powerful position.

They are not elected, yet they wield enormous influence over local life: from convening public meetings (barazas), controlling access to state services, enforcing regulations, and shaping community narratives.

By formally embedding a dedicated police unit within this administrative structure, the state effectively fuses civil administration with coercive power.

This fusion is where the danger lies.

Also Read: Governors Must Appear Before the Public Accounts Committee: Accountability Is Not Optional

The Myth of Neutral Security

The argument that NGAPU enhances coordination and service delivery glosses over a harder truth: security is never politically neutral.

A police unit that “enforces government policies” at the grassroots inevitably enforces the priorities of the government of the day.

In an election cycle, those priorities often blur dangerously with campaign interests, regime protection, and voter management.

History across Africa and indeed Kenya itself shows how administrative policing can be quietly mobilized to intimidate, selectively enforce laws, restrict assemblies, or subtly shape political behavior, all while maintaining a façade of legality.

Reading Intent in Reform Choices

Reading malice here does not require cynicism; it requires realism.

Why is such a structural shift necessary now? Why formalize and gazette an administrative police unit at a moment when political competition is intensifying, and public trust in institutions is already strained?

If the intention were purely technical, such reforms could have been pursued earlier in the electoral cycle, insulated from political suspicion.

Doing so on the road to 2027 invites the inference that security is being pre-positioned, not merely reformed.

Also Read: Why Being Right Has Never Won an Election in Kenya

Centralisation Disguised as Grassroots Security

Moreover, the rhetoric of “grassroots security” often masks centralization rather than empowerment.

True community security grows from accountability, local consent, and civilian oversight, not from expanding armed presence under appointed administrators.

Without clear safeguards, transparent mandates, and independent oversight, NGAPU risks becoming less a protector of citizens and more a custodian of state interests.

This is not to deny that Chiefs require support or that communities deserve safety.

It is to insist that security architecture must be designed with democratic restraint, especially in politically sensitive periods.

Otherwise, the state risks normalizing a system where administrative authority and policing power merge into a single instrument, efficient, yes, but also easily abused.

If you have been around for a while, you know this story rarely ends where it begins. It starts with coordination and service delivery.

It often ends with fear, silence, and the shrinking of civic space.

As Kenya marches toward 2027, the gazettement of NGAPU should not be applauded uncritically.

It should be interrogated, firmly, publicly, and without apology, because in politics, especially around elections, structure is strategy.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates

Dr. Luchetu Likaka, PhD, is a Distinguished Consultant Criminologist and Sociologist, boasting over 15 years of Experience in the Field. PHOTO/ Luchetu Likaka