The Court of Appeal has stepped in to temporarily block a ruling that would have given the Inspector-General of Police full control over promotions and dismissals within the National Police Service.
The move underscores a growing constitutional debate over which body—the Inspector-General or the National Police Service Commission—holds ultimate authority over key personnel matters in the police.
A three-judge panel, chaired by Daniel Musinga and joined by Mumbi Ngugi and George Odunga, on Friday, delivered the order following an appeal by the Law Society of Kenya against the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruling issued on October 30, 2025.
The appeal involves former MP John Harun Mwau, the Inspector-General of Police, the National Police Service, the National Police Service Commission, the Attorney General, the National Security Council and the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.
In her initial ruling, Justice Hellen Wasilwa stated that the National Police Service Commission has no constitutional mandate to manage recruitment, appointments, promotions, or discipline of police personnel.
She emphasized that the Constitution clearly defines the separate roles of the Inspector-General and the Commission, and any interference would undermine the independent command of the Inspector-General.
"The Inspector General shall exercise independent command over the National Police Service, and no person may give direction with respect to matters of employment, assignment, promotion, suspension, or dismissal of any member of the Service,” Justice Wasilwa affirmed.
The Law Society of Kenya quickly moved to appeal, seeking to halt the ruling from taking effect. LSK argued that allowing the decision to proceed could disrupt the constitutional balance between the Inspector-General and the Commission, potentially paralyzing recruitment, training, and promotion processes in the service.
"That unless the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court is stayed, the processes of recruitment, appointment, promotion, removal, and dismissal within the National Police Service are likely to be undertaken by an organ that lacks constitutional authority to perform those functions," the appellate court noted.
The appeal gained support from the National Police Service Commission and IPOA. IPOA CEO Elema Halake said the ruling has wide public implications, raising fundamental questions about how the Constitution is interpreted regarding the management of police officers.
LSK advocate Florence Muturi warned that the ELRC judgment could reverse reforms aimed at boosting discipline, professionalism, and merit-based advancement in the police service.
The Inspector-General, Douglas Kanja, together with the National Police Service, opposed the suspension. They insisted the Constitution already gives the Inspector-General authority over employment matters, noting that recruitment of constables had been completed and training was ongoing.
"That the intended appeal is not arguable since, pursuant to Article 245(4)(c) of the Constitution, the 2nd respondent (NPS) has the mandate to employ, assign, promote, suspend and dismiss any member of the police service without being directed by any person or body, including the 4th respondent (NPSC)," Kanja argued.
The Inspector-General also cautioned that freezing the process could threaten public safety, particularly with the 2027 general elections approaching.
The Court of Appeal noted that while recruitment had concluded, the appeal raises important constitutional questions, particularly over whether the NPSC or the Inspector-General should control promotions and dismissals. The judges stressed that allowing these processes to continue before the appeal is resolved could lead to confusion and irreversible outcomes.
The court therefore temporarily suspended the exercise of powers to promote and dismiss officers pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
"For avoidance of doubt, we are not, by this ruling, reverting those powers to the National Police Service Commission. The exercise of those powers shall await determination of the appeal," the bench clarified.
The appeal has been prioritized, with a final ruling expected within three months.
