By FRED OLUOCH
Reports that Kenyan authorities have made two futile attempts to apprehend the alleged mastermind of the 1998 Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam bombing, Fazul Abdullah, has raised two fundamental questions. The capacity of the Kenyan anti-terrorism squad and the veracity of the threat against Kenya.
Is somebody out to keep Kenya permanently on edge given that the country has suffered two terrorist attacks, in 1998 and 2002? The sudden focus of the possible presence of terrorist cells in Kenya has rekindled the fears that Western powers are pushing the government to re-introduce the controversial anti-terrorism bill.
Some human rights groups and the Muslim community are jittery that the failed attempt to arrest Fazul in Malindi two weeks ago, could provide a justification for a quick passage of the Suppression of Terrorism Bill, 2003, that was withdrawn after furious protests from the Kenyan Muslims.

What raised eyebrows is that the sudden search for Abdullah coincided with the tenth anniversary of the Nairobi bombing, essentially re-enacting the anxiety and the fears Kenyans faced ten years ago after the bombing by suspected al-Qaeda, a global terrorist network.
The Government has subsequently pledged increased surveillance and vigilance as a measure to counter terrorism security agents have put in place measures to pre-empt future attacks.
But the minister for justice, national cohesion and constitutional affairs, Martha Karua, denied that Kenya is under pressure from outsiders to re-introduce the controversial anti-terrorism legislation, even though she admitted that her ministry has no responsibility over the bill since it is being handled by the office of the president.
“Whenever there is a threat to the security of Kenyans it is the duty of the government to swing into action, and in doing so ensure that we do not upset innocent Kenyans. I do not think it an issue of being pushed by anyone, not is an issue of religion. I know of no religion in the world that accommodates criminality,” she said.
In 2004, there were reports that Kenyan authorities were considering re-introducing the controversial legislation after the United States and Britain complained that the Kenya’s efforts to clamp down on terrorism were unsatisfactory.
It followed the US and Israeli criticism of a Kenyan court’s decision to release seven people implicated in the November 2002 attack on Israeli-run Paradise Hotel near the coastal resort of Mombasa, where 16 people died.
Now with the revelations that Abdullah had sneaked into Kenya and only escaped by a whisker as the anti-terror squad were closing in on him, the Kenya government will have to contend with the fact that the threat against Kenya still exists.
But the vice-chairman of the Kenya National Commission of Human Rights, Hassan Omar Hassan, the failed attempt to arrest Abdullah is characteristic of the US style of heighten public fear and anxiety and to legitimise operations against suspected terrorists like it happened in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
“The fact that terrorism cells could still be existing in Kenya does not take away the serious objections Kenyan raised about the Suppression of Terrorism Bill in 2003. Justice is not about the popularity of the war against terror, but the rights of citizens,” said Mr Hassan.
Mr Hassan says that the human rights groups are worried over the possibility of the government responding to the succumbing to outside pressure without taking into consideration the human rights violations in the bill.
The Suppression of Terrorism Bill, 2003 was faulted for containing vague and broad definition of terrorism and terrorist acts, and gave wide-ranging powers to authorities to search and detain people in connection with terrorist activities.
It also gave the minster in charge of internal security the discretion to declare an individual or groups as having connection with terrorism and provided for indefinite detention of suspects, besides denying them legal representation during interrogation.
The bill gave the police blanket discretion to act with force against suspects in a manner that is not even given during a state of emergency, which raised fears of potential ground for abuse and the consequent violations of human rights.
Early last year, there were suspicions that the government had been forced to implement sections of the bill through the back door, following a series of renditions in which several Kenyans were carted to Ethiopia, Somalia and the US on suspicion of being terrorists, without going through the Kenyan legal system.
That is why those wary of its return argue that the bill as currently worded will erode all the civil liberties Kenyans have fought for and won since early 1990s.
But Ms Karua would hear non of it. “It is an issue of an investigation like any other. We have had investigations not just relating to terrorism, it also relates to criminal activities within the country where we have had complaints by sections of the community that people are being harassed, especially in the pursuit of the so-called Mungiki,” she said
Ms Karua noted tat even though the bill that was fronted by the office of the president, she is aware that there were consultations to ensure that the legislation takes on board the concerns to safeguard the human rights of the innocent people and those of the suspects. She added that even the fiercest critics of that bill do agree that there are legal concerns to addressed.
Giving the official position the prime minster Raila Odinga, Salim Lone said that the prime minster was horrified of the new threat and believes that Kenya must do all it can to fight terrorism because the country has suffered from it twice.
He added, that the prime minster insists that the authorities must not stigmatise any community in the process. According to Mr Lone, Mr Odinga is convinced that the world must the crises in the Middle East that is flaming people’s anger, such as the continued war in Iraq. That Palestinians deserve a separate state, while Israel need secure border