A six-year term handed to Public Service Commission chair Francis Meja has come under scrutiny after petitioners questioned whether he can lawfully begin a fresh tenure less than two years after joining the commission.
The High Court has allowed the challenge to his appointment to continue, setting the stage for a constitutional interpretation of the period members of commissions can remain in office.
The dispute follows Meja’s elevation from PSC commissioner to chairperson, a move the petitioners say cannot give him a new six-year period because both positions are within the same commission.
Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Karanja Matindi have challenged the arrangement, relying on Article 250(6)(a) of the Constitution. The provision limits a member of a constitutional commission or the holder of an independent office to a maximum aggregate period of six years, except where the person serves ex officio.
Their argument is that the constitutional limit applies to the time spent in the commission, rather than the specific title held by an individual. They therefore want the court to determine whether Meja’s earlier service as a commissioner should be included when calculating his tenure as chairperson.
Meja disputes that interpretation. He maintains that his appointment as chairperson in February 2026 was separate from his earlier appointment as a commissioner and created a distinct constitutional office.
He first joined the PSC in January 2025 as a commissioner and spent about one year in that position before being selected to lead the commission.
His nomination as chairperson was approved by Parliament on February 25, 2026, after the Labour Committee considered his suitability. His eligibility was raised during the vetting process.
Two days later, President William Ruto formally appointed him to a six-year term as PSC chairperson. Meja was sworn into office on March 4, 2026.
The appointment became the subject of the court case, with the petitioners seeking clarity on whether a commissioner can move into the chairperson’s position and receive another full term.
Meja sought to have the petition thrown out, arguing that the courts had already dealt with the question in two earlier decisions involving the PSC.
The High Court found that the previous cases did not settle the issue now before it. According to the court, the earlier PSC dispute involved individuals who had served their terms in other constitutional commissions before joining the PSC.
That, the court said, was different from the current situation, which concerns a person who was already serving within the PSC before moving into another position in the same commission.
The court also dismissed the argument that the petitioners had waited too long to raise the issue and should have challenged Meja’s eligibility earlier.
The case will now test whether the six-year constitutional ceiling follows an individual throughout their service in one commission or whether a change from commissioner to chairperson allows a new tenure to begin.
The decision could provide clarity on how tenure limits apply when members of constitutional commissions move between positions within the same institution.