The seminar was chaired by Sir Francis Richards, Director of the Centre for Studies in Security and Diplomacy (CSSD), University of Birmingham; and Former Director of UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). The speakers included Sandy Africa, (PhD, Witwatersrand) who serves on the Advisory Group of the GFN-SSR and is an Associate Professor in Political Sciences at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and Hans Born, who heads the DCAF’s research working groups on Parliamentary Accountability of the Security Sector and Legal Aspects of Security Sector Governance.
The seminar began with an introduction by Sandy Africa of the new book, “Changing Intelligence Dynamics in Africa”, which she co-edited with Johnny Kwadjo following a wide collaboration with a range of local actors working on intelligence in Africa, including the African Security Sector Network (ASSN). Sandy highlighted how the book was a response to the dearth of analysis and information of Intelligence in Africa, arguing that the field remained relatively unexplored. She hopes the book will set the tone and climate to generate further analysis, engagement and debate in the field of intelligence services in Africa.
Sandy continued the seminar with a presentation on “Intelligence Reform and Accountability in Africa”. She began by outlining the original context of the intelligence sector in Africa, noting a lack of legitimacy and ignorance of the rule of law, but concluded that choices were made and challenges faced and that change is on the way. Sandy discussed overarching topics within the discourse of intelligence in Africa; ranging from the relevance of accountability, characteristics of African intelligence services to its successes and failures, as well possible spaces for improvement, and current threats African states must overcome.
Hans Born offered a detailed insight into rebalancing intelligence reform by promoting democratic intelligence governance in transition states. Hans noted that in security sector reform in post-conflict and transition states, intelligence reform is often ignored. He highlighted the need to reform intelligence services to include; transitional justice mechanisms, past and current intelligence services, elements of DDR and the (re)development of democratic intelligence governance structures. Hans set out five essential components of the reform of intelligence governance structures; preventing abuse and ensuring effectiveness; preventing the re-occurrence of past abuses; rebuilding public confidence in the intelligence services; promoting transparency; and (re)building international confidence and credibility of the international services. He mentioned the need to focus more on oversight than simply on effectiveness of the intelligence services. Through independent and/or parliamentary bodies, the oversight mechanism should be regulated by a legal framework to regulate the mandate, powers, responsibilities and lines of control. Furthermore, consideration must be given to various challenges such as the reformers’ expertise, as well as the timing of when to start reforming. Reform on this level is a very long process, involving consensus, political support, the risk of over politicisation of and within the intelligence services, and the inexistence of traditional parliamentary involvement in security sector reform.
Following the presentations, the question and answer sessions raised issues such as: the role of private provision of security; the visibility of progress made; drivers for intelligence reform; the need to change the culture with regards to how intelligence is carried out; the challenges in implementing in practice legislative reforms; the limitation of reform when there is a lack of political will from the state concerned to reform; and the political nature of intelligence services reform.
The two speakers concluded with remarks about the need to consider the needs and interests of the people the intelligence services aim to serve, as well as the challenge in not underestimating the role and importance of civil society. Sir Francis Richards ended on a positive note for the future by highlighting the need to spread experiences of good practice in intelligence service reform.
