Scope of study & central research questions
Peace Kioko’s paper focuses on the appropriateness of Kenya’s prison labour wages and the Earnings Scheme established under the Kenya Prisons Service Standing Orders of 1979. The theoretical framework is a human rights theory, specifically the right to dignity and the concept of the prison industrial complex (PIC). It examines the evolution of prison labour throughout the colonial period and into the modern post-independence era. The focus is on inmates obligated to provide labour, with a specific focus on private-oriented prisoners within the PIC framework advocating for a higher pay.
Some of the core research questions centred on this intersection are:
- Is the current meagre renumeration appropriate and are 10 to 20 cents commensurate to the work done?
- How does the right to dignity impact the case for higher pay and does the pay violate this right?
- Can inmates, especially within the PIC model, meet the legal criteria for ‘employees’ under Kenyan law?
- What lessons can be learnt from India and their equitable wages informed by minimum wage standards?
Position within existing literature & core thesis
The author positions their paper in relation to other studies where scholars advocate for no pay, low pay, or pay grounded in human rights. Within this growing debate, she applies the human rights theory and the PIC framework to evaluate the appropriateness of current wages. She evaluates the Earnings Scheme established in 1979 and deems it no longer viable due to the deteriorated purchasing power of the shilling and the evolving nature of prison labour, particularly when inmates are out-contracted to private actors.
The author’s core thesis is that Kenya’s current prison labour wages ranging from 10 to 20 cents a day are “grossly incommensurate” with their intended purposes and constitute an unreasonable and unjustifiable violation of the constitutional right to dignity.
Principal arguments & development of arguments
The author using the human rights theory argues that human beings must be treated as “an end” and not a “means to an end”. Using prisoners for cheap or free labour to offset prison costs treats them as instruments for state or private profit. She concludes that while the low pay is “legal”, it is not justifiable because it fails to facilitate the prisoner’s rehabilitation and restitution. Furthermore, prisoners working within the PIC should be legally recognised as employees and paid accordingly. They are subject to organisational norms, do not bear the risk of loss and perform work that generates significant revenue (Ksh 444 million in 2019).
The author draws lessons from India, which ties the wages to the minimum wage standard but subject to deductions for upkeep. She highlights the Supreme Court of India’s ruling that paying less than the minimum wage constitutes “forced labour” and a violation of dignity. The author concludes by arguing for a multi-branch approach for reform. The Executive; the Cabinet Secretary for National Security, should exercise existing power to revise the 1979 Earnings Scheme. The Legislature should amend the Prisons Act to distinguish those obligated to work and those who can choose to work to manage costs while upholding the rights of those who do labour.
