Alternative dispute resolution in combating banditry in Kenya’s North Rift Region: Effectiveness, legal boundaries and institutional integration

Abstract

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is deeply rooted in the social organisation of pastoral communities, yet its effectiveness against contemporary armed and commercialised banditry remains uncertain. This article interrogated the effectiveness of ADR mechanisms in combating banditry in Kenya’s North Rift region. It examined awareness, commonly used mechanisms, perceived effectiveness, legal boundaries and the relationship between ADR and formal security interventions. The study was guided by Institutional Theory and restorative justice principles and adopted a pragmatist, explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. It was conducted in Baringo and Elgeyo Marakwet counties. The principal survey population comprised 242,379 livestock-rearing household heads. Fisher’s formula produced a sample of 384 household heads, proportionately selected across eleven sub-counties; 350 usable questionnaires were returned. Key informants were drawn from law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary, probation services, national administration, religious organisations and civil society, while four focus group discussions involved 40 Kenya Police Reservists. Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions and document review. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and thematic analysis were used. Awareness of ADR was nearly universal at 97.4%. Mediation was the most commonly used mechanism (81.1% of the total sample), followed by restorative justice (10.6%) and restitution (5.7%). Mediation received the highest positive effectiveness rating at 68.8%, followed by restitution at 57.7% and restorative justice at 38.3%. However, 94.3% of respondents reported that ADR and the formal criminal justice system were not used concurrently. Qualitative evidence showed that ADR was considered appropriate for non-violent cattle theft, restitution and inter-community reconciliation, but inappropriate for armed cattle theft, murder and robbery with violence. ADR preferences were not significantly related to gender, age, education or occupation. ADR use was also not significantly correlated with disarmament (r = -.013, p = .810) or deployment of the Kenya Defence Forces and National Intelligence Service (r = .019, p = .730). The study concludes that ADR is legitimate and useful for relational and resource-based disputes but remains institutionally separated from formal justice and cannot independently address organised armed banditry. It recommends a legally defined hybrid justice model, structured referrals, joint case review, victim protection, restitution standards and development-oriented rehabilitation.