Kakuzi agribusiness firm has appointed Justice (Rtd.) Violet Mavisi as the Independent Lead of the company’s Operational Level Grievance Mechanism (OGM). Mavisi’s appointment will provide momentum to the firm’s ongoing efforts to maintain world-class human rights management standards.
The company kicked off its SIKIKA OGM development process in October 2020. This was aimed at providing a systematic and transparent process for receiving, investigating, and addressing company-related grievances from internal and external stakeholders.
Kakuzi’s SIKIKA process takes a victim-centred approach to resolve grievances by utilizing safeguards such as confidentiality counselling, among other measures. A SIKIKA OGM Progress report posted on the firm’s website confirms that its preliminary rollout was enhanced by technical support from Triple R Alliance, an independent, internationally recognised human rights and social performance consulting firm working with local Human Rights experts.
Mid last year, Kakuzi announced the appointment of an Independent Human Rights Advisory Committee (IHRAC) chaired by former Attorney General Prof. Githu Muigai. With the appointment of the committee to its Board, Kakuzi became the first corporate organization in Sub Sahara Africa to constitute and establish such an independent advisory panel benchmarked against the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The committee provides independent technical advisory to the firm’s Board of Directors, guaranteeing sustainable compliance with global human rights principles across the firm’s operations.
Speaking on Justice Mavisi’s appointment, Kakuzi Managing Director Mr. Chris Flowers said, “At Kakuzi, we are pleased to welcome aboard Ms. Mavisi as the new Independent SIKIKA OGM Head. In this role, she will lead a dedicated team ensuring the effective rollout of the OGM process. For Kakuzi, doing the right thing means investigating every complaint related to its business, focusing on facts and providing an appropriate and accountable remedy for those cases where evidence indicates that harm was done.”