Parliament must have the last word on vetting for citizenship. By Billy Mijungu The removal of vetting for citizenship is a decision that carries significant implications for national security trust in identity documentation and the integrity of statehood itself. While the announcement may seem like a move toward inclusivity it begins to dismantle a critical process that has long been in place to safeguard the nation from infiltration manipulation and security threats. The President’s directive issued from the heart of Northern Kenya was made against a backdrop of escalating insecurity including the recent abduction of five chiefs by Al Shabaab. It is a paradox that even as the nation tightens its security measures by restricting entry from Somalia and Libya it simultaneously loosens the internal processes that have long served as the first line of defense against those who seek to exploit our systems.The President’s decision to ban Somalia and Libya from using the Electronic Travel Authorization while granting other Africans the right to enter Kenya freely was a clear signal of the security concerns the country faces. The fact that he addressed residents of Northern Kenya from a high grade armoured vehicle only a day after the abduction of local leaders underscores the severity of the threat. If even the head of state must take such extreme precautions in this region how can it be justified to remove a vetting process that ensures those seeking citizenship are properly scrutinized. His own actions send a message of fear and caution yet the policy change suggests a dangerous contradiction. Vetting did not exist without reason. It was a mechanism put in place to ensure that citizenship was granted to individuals with verifiable identities clear loyalties and an untainted history. In a region plagued by cross border movements of militants arms and illegal trade it was an indispensable safeguard. History has shown that states that lose control over their citizenship processes inevitably suffer the consequences in ways that extend beyond their borders. The fear that Kenyan passports could one day be used to facilitate acts of terror in foreign lands is not unfounded. Once a country's identification documents lose credibility its citizens especially those from regions previously under scrutiny will find themselves facing suspicion and discrimination on a global scale. It is often those who demand the removal of vetting who will suffer the most from its absence. The international community does not operate on goodwill alone. Passports and national identity cards are not mere travel documents but representations of a country’s commitment to law order and due diligence. The ranking of passports on the global stage is determined not just by diplomatic relations but by the level of trust a nation inspires in its ability to regulate who carries its documentation. A sudden relaxation of security procedures will send a clear message to the world that Kenyan citizenship is now more accessible possibly to individuals whose affiliations and intentions are not properly vetted. The repercussions will be swift with visa restrictions increased scrutiny at international borders and potential blacklisting of certain passport holders. The argument that vetting is an oppressive tool does not hold when examined closely. Vetting has always been conducted by local authorities individuals from the very communities affected including chiefs elders intelligence officers and security personnel who understand the historical social and security dynamics of their regions. It is not an external imposition but a structured process aimed at ensuring that citizenship is granted on a legitimate and secure basis. To remove it is to open floodgates that will be nearly impossible to close once exploited.Statehood is built on the foundation of controlled identity structured governance and the ability to distinguish between friend and foe. When nations in the past have relaxed their vetting procedures under political or populist pressure the consequences have been severe. Terror networks thrive on weak identification systems fraudulent citizenship claims and easy access to documentation that grants them unregulated movement. The cost of reversing such damage is always exponentially higher than the cost of maintaining security measures in the first place. It is not just about Northern Kenya nor is it about a particular community. It is about national security and the credibility of the Kenyan state. No Kenyan outside the affected regions is at ease with this decision and it would be a grave mistake to allow such a critical matter to be settled by executive pronouncement alone. Parliament must have the final say. If anything the vetting process ecure its documents retain their value and its citizens are protected from the far reaching consequences of weakened national security. The pursuit of inclusivity must never come at the expense of security for a nation that fails to protect its identity ultimately risks losing its sovereignty. Facebook X Instagram TikTok LinkedIn @BillyMijungu #forward #tusongembele