A sharp constitutional dispute has landed at the Milimani High Court, casting a spotlight on the delicate balance of power within Kenya’s security sector.
The petition, filed by civil society group Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui, questions whether the Inspector General, who commands the police operationally, can also take charge of payroll management, or whether this responsibility lies with the Commission, which the Constitution tasks with handling recruitment, promotions, and disciplinary matters.
The case, which was lodged on August 11, 2025, has been certified as urgent because of the government’s plan to recruit 10,000 new officers in the coming weeks.
The timing has made the case especially urgent. The petitioners argue that the payroll question must be settled before thousands of fresh recruits are added to the system.
They insist that payroll management is not merely an operational role, but a core human resource function that rightfully falls under the Commission, which the Constitution tasks with overseeing recruitment, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary action in the police service.
According to the petition, the Inspector General’s move to assume payroll powers risks undermining transparency and accountability within the police force.
The applicants fear that if the recruitment goes ahead, the payroll entries for the 10,000 officers will be embedded in a system run under contested authority, rendering the case meaningless by the time the court delivers its judgment.
In their view, such a development would entrench practices that may later be declared unconstitutional, making it difficult to reverse appointments and administrative actions.
In their court filings, the petitioners emphasize that payroll is not just about salaries but is central to how human resource decisions are implemented across the service.
Promotions, transfers, suspensions, and even disciplinary measures all reflect through payroll systems, making control over it a powerful tool in shaping the careers and welfare of officers.
They warn that handing such powers to the Inspector General, rather than the Commission, could destabilize the police service and erode public confidence in national security institutions.
The respondents in the case are the Inspector General of Police, the National Police Service, and the Attorney General. The National Police Service Commission and the Law Society of Kenya have also been listed as interested parties.
However, court documents show that despite being served on August 14, 2025, none of the respondents or interested parties have filed any responses to the petition.
The applicants argue that this silence makes their case even more urgent and urged the court to issue temporary orders to stop the recruitment until the matter is determined.
Lawyer Danstan Omari, representing the petitioners, told the court that the issue strikes at the heart of constitutional checks and balances within the police service.
He noted that the case is not only about the welfare of officers but also about upholding the principle of civilian oversight, which was a key consideration when the Commission was created.
He added that payroll control directly affects how resources are managed within the service and could impact everything from recruitment to promotions.
While the Inspector General is in charge of operational command, the Commission was set up to oversee human resource matters and ensure accountability.
The ruling of the High Court could set a precedent that shapes future police recruitment, promotions, and disciplinary procedures, and may also influence the governance of other security institutions in Kenya.
The petitioners have asked the court to hear the matter during recess, stressing that any delay could result in irreversible consequences if the disputed recruitment is allowed to proceed.
