ict practitioners bill is back

Anyone with a copy of the latest version of the bill or link?

From: kictanet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Collins Areba via kictanet
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 1:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Collins Areba
Subject: Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review :

a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front,

b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the greater good and

c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising.

Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from exploiting their creativity.

Bwana PS:

I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced, period!

Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the gaps.

The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage.

Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation.


Collins Areba,

Kilifi, Kenya.

Tel: +254 707 750 788 / 0731750788
Twitter: @arebacollins.

Skype: arebacollins

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:


As we mull over this discussion, let us also consider how we engage. Attached is a Kictanet brief for discussion that identifies some key characteristics for inclusive cyber policy making that would be useful moving forward.


On 18 Dec 2017 10:16, “gertrude matata via kictanet” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

In support of self regulation, there are at least some traditional guidelines when coming up with new legislation:

1. Is there serious mischief clearly identified that the law should address.

2. Who is best suited to cure the mischief

3.In prescribing a cure, consider whether the proposed cure is likely to create some other mischief ,if so

4. Consider which is the worse mischief , the current ill or the side effects of the cure.

5.Who would be qualified to cure is the authority or institution that is to be given the mandate to deal with the mischief.

So the pros and Cons of the Bill should be subjected to the test.

Gertrude Matata

4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11
P.O. Box 517-00517
Wireless 020-2159837
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of GERTRUDE MATATA & CO. ADVOCATES.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.


Send SMS

Call from mobile

Add to Skype

You’ll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

On Monday, December 18, 2017, 11:19:05 AM GMT+3, Grace Mutung’u (Bomu) via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Replying to Julius Njiraini who has been posting one liners in support of the bill…..and also about this one organisation represents everyone….

we are a diverse country with varying interests. And diversity is good as it helps us to get different points of view on the table. No one organisation has monopoly of views in ICT or any other sector.

We must dissuade ourselves from the notion that people need the law or a new law to organise themselves. Humans are social and they organise naturally. KEPSA, KICTANet, ISACA and many others who engage on ICT policy exsist without a special law?

I hope this debate can shift from forced association through ICT Practitioners Bill to identifying the problems and seeking solutions.

In my view, one main challenge is that the Ministry could be more responsive to stakeholders who want to engage with it. And this should be any and all stakeholders who are interested be they organisations or individuals, all sectors- private, academia, techies and civil society. More openess than closeness please!

On 18 Dec 2017 02:02, “Ali Hussein via kictanet” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:


I stand by my statement.

We DID NOT mandate KEPSA to speak on our behalf but we created an inclusive team. This was a partnership. Even the letter to parliament had all our logos. KEPSA, BAKE, KICTANET etc. And yes that team was specifically set up to kill the ICT Bill. That work was concluded. To hear of a revived initiative that purported to have a representative from KICTANet is really a surprise to us all.

If I recall the representatives from KICTANet were myself and Grace Bomu. John Walubengo was also part of the team in case one of us couldn’t attend the meetings. If there were any further initiatives on this bill the first time we heard about them was through the press.

To be clear. I stand by my statement. KEPSA doesn’t have the mandate to represent KICTANet.

Ali Hussein


Hussein & Associates

+254 0713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.” ~ Aristotle

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Dec 2017, at 11:17 PM, Liz Orembo via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

For the record KICTANet was opposed to the ICT practitioners bill. Please see the submission to parliament www.kictane t.or.ke/?page_id=28886

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:


Allow me to add a comment or two. I believe we will start deviating from the main issue.

Firstly, I think we need to very much understand where the buck stops on each matter. As much as yes, Bwana Mucheru, you require the industry to take lead in defining frameworks, there also needs to be guidance from the top. KICTANET is (as on the website) a catalyst for reforms. Bwana Mucheru these reforms need to be worked on by the both of us. We need you to become a part of the process together with all of us. The whole point of having the MoICT and bodies like Kictanet (which are catalysts) is the fact that we need to work together. Silos don’t solve a problem.

Bwana Mucheru, also I may not recollect this list necessarily being hostile in the past. And as any of us, you have a right to make your comments heard, and also I believe we need to also have a feedback loop between all of us. I think through the KICTANET website it is evident KICTANET has been doing its job well. If there are ways KICTANET can improve, Bwana Mucheru, feel free to raise the suggestions. This country belongs to all of us Sir.

Lastly, Bwana Mucheru, this list has too many members who are strategic to the development of our country. And all of us need to be engaged with you. I think it will not do all of us much justice if we see you refrain from commenting on it. Lets all work collectively.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Fiona Asonga via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Dear Ali

You were with us at KEPSA Offices when we asked that KICATNET nominate representatives to work with us on the ICT Practitioners Bill. Because we want to achieve more as an industry we ave continues to work with your representatives even on the Vision 2030 MTP III plan and other engagements we have had with the ministry of ICT. It is not about KICTANET being a member but being a partner and working with TESPOK, DRAKE, KITOS, BAKE, ICTAK and any other ICT association.

The document we circulated through KEPSA to the Ministry and parliament included KICATNET as part of KEPSA. You may need to reconsider your statement to CS Mucheru. Secondly, the KEPSA partnership with KICTANET is not compulsory. However, it is in the interest of achieving similar set goals for the ICT sector as a whole. KICATNET is free to pull out of it at any time just advise KEPSA secretariat on the same.

Together we can achieve more

Kind regards


From: “Ali Hussein via kictanet” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: “Ali Hussein” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 3:11:02 PM

Subject: Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

Dear Bwana CS

KICTANet NEVER asked KEPSA to handle engagements on our behalf. We engaged KEPSA to work as a team. Period. Never, did we abdicate our responsibilities to KEPSA because we are not KEPSA members. If KEPSA gave you that belief then I’m afraid that you were misled. And KEPSA should apologise for misleading you.

Ali Hussein


Hussein & Associates

Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/alih kassim

13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,

Chiromo Road, Westlands,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Ali Hussein,

This is the reason I keep off this list. You are calling me a liar and yet your team asked KEPSA to handle the engagements in this matter.

With all respect going forward let’s follow the agreed engagements between government and private sector.

Ahsante Sana!


On 17 Dec 2017 11:17, “Ali Hussein via kictanet” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Bwana CS

With all due respect. You are a senior government official and shouldn’t peddle untruths.


We have collaborated only once on the ICT BIll. Most of us don’t believe KEPSA is representative of the wider ICT Industry.

We welcome dialogue with your ministry and KEPSA on this. We are happy to be included in the conversation. We however CANNOT endorse a dialogue and discussions we are not party to.

Ali Hussein


Hussein & Associates

+254 0713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.” ~ Aristotle

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Dec 2017, at 9:04 AM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Digital forensic expert is involved in investigation of fraud, abuse, embezzlement, larceny, conversion of any digital device, records and process. The report is supposed to be presented in courtroom and testify as expert witness. He is also supposed to corroborate evidence with other segment of crime scene using relevant laws including evidence act, criminal procedures code and cyber crime laws as best international laws in other countries

On Dec 17, 2017 8:32 AM, “Julius Njiraini” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Thanks for your enlightenment. Am just concerned about new emerging fields like information security and forensics which is mainly concerned with digital cyber crime and evidence presentation in courtroom. These is especially concerns for computer security and forensics professionals

On Dec 17, 2017 6:12 AM, “Joseph Mucheru via kictanet” <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

The absence of dialogue and relying on media reports is a recipe for discord. The current views, sentiments and concerns raised in the group are justified only because there is no dialogue. Kicktanet is part of KEPSA who we are in constant dialogue even on this topic. Going forward, the need to dialogue through the agreed channels is key;

So let me try and give a position on where we are;

* I did state that we will need a Practitioners Bill and even clarified to media it would not be the current one
* There is currently NO Bill in parliament. The last one lapsed and we would need to start afresh
* The bill identified a need/gap in our sector that requires some action, especially since ICT is at the heart of the Governments development agenda
* The Industry was opposed with the method/solutions proposed by the Bill but not the fact there is a gap
* Other Industries have self regulating bodies and if our sector is to grow, we need to get organised and set this up. Why should government have to do it?
* We are exporting our skills regionally and internationally and a need to standardise and demonstrate our skills is key. This is because we are not working in isolation, we are competing with other countries and Kenya must be able to demonstrate consistent and quality skills

KICTANet Admin information

Related Posts

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.