Efficacy of Fingerprint and Facial Recognition in Enhancing National Security in Kenya

This study explores the efficacy of fingerprint and facial recognition technologies in enhancing national security in Kenya. As the issue of crime, fraud, and border security has been increasing, the use of biometric systems has been embraced to enhance the process of identity verification in government agencies. The study was guided by securitization theory, which frames issues as security threats requiring urgent attention, and diffusion of innovation theory, which examines how new technologies spread and are adopted. Securitization Theory highlighted biometric systems as key to national security, while Diffusion of Innovation Theory helped explain the factors influencing public acceptance. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by a mixed-approach methodology. The questionnaire that was prepared was given to 397 randomly selected members of the population and 30 governmental officials (National Police Officers, Immigration Personnel, KRA Customs Officials and National Intelligence Personnel. Also, 30 key informant interviews were carried out to collect in-depth knowledge of their perceptions, experiences, and issues on biometric systems. The analysis of the data was conducted based on the descriptive statistics and the regression analysis to find connections among the factors that affect the national security. This research sought to evaluate familiarity, implementation, accuracy, and effect of the use of biometric systems on crime detection, reduction of fraud, and effectiveness of the border security. The results indicate that 89.6% of the respondents are conversant with biometric systems, and 83% of them (respondents) indicate the presence of such technologies in their respective organizations. On accuracy, majority of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied (80.2%) with the performance of these systems. Nonetheless, issues of system failures, lack of training, and opposition by the populace were noted as obstacles to the complete adoption of biometric technologies. Although these have been raised, 80.2% of the respondents noted that biometric systems have a positive effect on crime detection and reduction of frauds, with almost half (47.2%) indicating that the effects are significant. The research findings are that biometric systems are a positive contribution toward the national security in Kenya, but their success is adversely affected by the operational and social barriers. The recommendations of this study were investing in the upgrades of infrastructure, offering continuous staff training, dealing with issues of public trust, fortification of legal frameworks, and encouraging inter-agency cooperation, enhancing integration and effectiveness. Through these issues, Kenya will be able to realize the full potential of biometric technologies in securing the borders of the country and advancing the law enforcement process.

Biometric Systems, National Security, Fingerprint Recognition, Crime Detection, Border Security

1. Afolabi, O. S. (2020). Biometric Technologies, Electoral Fraud and the Management of Elections in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. The Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 42(2), 205-229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmad, S. M. S., Ali, B. M., & Adnan, W. A. W. (2018). Technical issues and challenges of biometric applications as access control tools of information security. International journal of innovative computing, information, and control, 8(11), 7983-7999. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arora, A. (2025). Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Legacy Systems and Potential Solutions for Seamless Integration. Available at SSRN 5268176. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bacon, H., & Warner, D. (2021). Ethical concerns in the implementation of biometric identification systems. International Review of Data Protection, 15(3), 98-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Buckley, O., & Nurse, J. R. (2019). The language of biometrics: Analyzing public perceptions. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 47, 112-119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Buzan, B., Waever, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cambaco, O., Gachuhi, N., Distler, R., Cuinhane, C., Parker, E., Mucavele, E., ... & Sacoor, C. (2021). Acceptability and perceived facilitators and barriers to the usability of biometric registration among infants and children in Manhiça district, Mozambique: A qualitative study. Plos one, 16(12), e0260631. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cambaco, S., Lima, T., & Souza, C. (2021). Public perception of biometric surveillance systems in Africa. Journal of Security and Ethics, 11(1), 77-88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chen, H., Ma, R., & Zhang, M. (2022). Recent progress in visualization and analysis of fingerprint level 3 features. ChemistryOpen, 11(11), e202200091. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chen, R., Zhang, M., & Wang, L. (2022). The effectiveness of biometric identification systems in fraud prevention and crime detection: A global review. Security and Technology Journal, 35(2), 58-74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Crumpler, W., & Lewis, J. A. (2021). How Does Facial Recognition Work? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gelb, A., & Clark, J. (2019). Challenges of biometric systems in developing nations. Global Governance Studies, 8(2), 145-159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. González-González, M., Belharbi, S., Zeeshan, M. O., Sharafi, M., Aslam, M. H., Pedersoli, M., ... & Granger, E. (2025). BAH Dataset for Ambivalence/Hesitancy Recognition in Videos for Behavioural Change. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hossain, M., Saleh, A., & Singh, J. (2024). The adoption of biometric systems in Africa: A case study of security applications. African Security Review, 20(1), 45-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Huszti-Orbán, J., & Aoláin, F. (2020). Legal challenges in the implementation of biometric systems in Kenya. Journal of International Law and Technology, 12(4), 220-236. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jain, A. K., Ross, A., & Nandakumar, K. (2011). Handbook of biometrics. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jain, M. (2019). The Aadhaar card: Cybersecurity issues with India's biometric experiment. The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kabata, R. (2024). The Huduma Namba project: Enhancing security through biometric systems in Kenya. Kenya Security Review Journal, 3(1), 12-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kemboi, L. K. (2025). Tracking Maisha Namba-Digital UPI: What is changing, and what are the key issues? Available at SSRN 5175817. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khan, A., & Efthymiou, P. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of biometric systems in border security. International Journal of Security Technologies, 18(3), 65-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Khan, M., & Hanna, A. (2022). The subjects and stages of ai dataset development: A framework for dataset accountability. Ohio St. Tech. LJ, 19, 171. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Khan, N., & Efthymiou, M. (2021). The use of biometric technology at airports: The case of customs and border protection (CBP). International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100049. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kiilu, N. (2022). Indirect discrimination: Huduma Namba (digital identification) and the plight of the nubian community in Kenya. Strathmore L. Rev., 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kitsiou, A., Despotidi, C., Kalloniatis, C., & Gritzalis, S. (2022). The role of users’ demographic and social attributes for accepting biometric Systems: A Greek case study. Future Internet, 14(11), 328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Liu, D., & Tu, W. (2021). Factors influencing consumers' adoptions of biometric recognition payment devices: combination of initial trust and UTAUT model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 19(3), 345-363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lowell, R. (2023). Trust and privacy concerns in the deployment of biometric systems in developing countries. Global Data Protection Review, 7(2), 101-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lowell, R. T. (2023). Unchecked Checkpoints: Why TSA's Facial Recognition Plan May Need Congressional Approval. Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L., 26, 833. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Madhumita, A. (2023). Public acceptance and technical barriers to biometric systems in East Africa. East African Security Journal, 19(2), 23-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mills, G., Smith, M., & Wambui, S. (2019). Maisha Namba: Modernizing Kenya’s national identification systems. Journal of East African Governance, 6(1), 43-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ogunwole, O., Onukwulu, E. C., Joel, M. O., Adaga, E. M., & Ibeh, A. I. (2023). Modernizing legacy systems: A scalable approach to next-generation data architectures and seamless integration. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 4(1), 901-909. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Onuigbo, C. (2021). Privacy, security, and surveillance: A review of biometric system adoption in Africa. African Journal of Privacy and Security, 12(1), 28-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Oyosi, E. O. (2024). Security Measures and Border Security at Namanga One Stop Border Post, Kajiado County, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Kenyatta University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Qu, H., Li, J., & Liu, Z. (2019). Biometric technologies in crime detection and fraud prevention: A global perspective. Journal of Crime and Technology, 13(4), 101-112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Soto-Beltrán, L. L., Robayo-Pinzón, O. J., & Rojas-Berrio, S. P. (2022). Effects of perceived risk on intention to use biometrics in financial products: evidence from a developing country. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 39(2), 170-192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Toesland, F. (2021). African countries embracing biometrics and digital IDs. African Renewal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tsiftsi, C. (2024). Gesture Recognition Using Artificial Intelligence and Application to an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) (Master's thesis, Technical University of Crete (Greece)). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Waever, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46-86). Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Wambui, S., Gathara, M., & Kipchumba, N. (2022). Public attitudes toward biometric surveillance in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. Kenya Security and Technology Journal, 21(1), 9-19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Wienroth, M., & Amelung, N. (2023). Crisis’, control and circulation: Biometric surveillance in the policing of the ‘crimmigrant other. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 25(3), 297-312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Zhang, W., Zhang, H., & Deng, Z. (2025). Public attitude and media governance of biometric information dissemination in the era of digital intelligence. Scientific reports, 15(1), 2419. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Occupational Culture in Relation to Job Satisfaction and Work Performance among Police
• Inmates' Character Reformation and Recidivism in Nigeria: A Study of Okaka Correctional Facility, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
• Life World of Former Female Basic Internal Security Operations Course (BISOC) Trainees