The National Police Service Commission (NPSC) has shed light on why in-house legal officers in the National Police Service are yet to receive their non-practicing allowance, pointing to a mix of legal interpretation issues, administrative processes, and lack of budget allocation as the main obstacles delaying compliance with a Court of Appeal ruling.
The matter was brought before the National Assembly by Suna West MP Peter Masara, who questioned the Commission over the continued delay despite a binding court decision. In his query, the lawmaker asked: “Why in-house counsels employed in the National Police Service have yet to be paid their non-practicing allowance in compliance with the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the case of National Environmental Management Authority v Wabwoto & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KECA 276 (KLR)?”
He further pressed the Commission to “outline the measures taken to ensure that in-house counsels of the National Police Service are paid the non-practicing allowance” and to “provide the timelines within which the outstanding non-practicing allowance will be paid to the in-house counsels.”
In a response dated April 7, 2026, and presented to the Departmental Committee on Administration and Internal Security, NPSC Chief Executive Officer Peter Leley confirmed that the Commission is aware of the court decision but said its implementation has not been straightforward.
The Commission cited the appellate ruling in “NEMA v Wabwoto & 3 others [2025] KECA 276 (KLR)” as the basis for demands by in-house counsel across government institutions seeking payment of the allowance. However, it explained that applying the judgment requires alignment with existing public service pay structures and policies.
According to the NPSC, one of the main challenges has been understanding the full scope of the ruling, especially when it comes to identifying which in-house legal officers qualify for the allowance. This has led to further legal review and internal consultations before any payments can be processed.
The Commission also pointed to operational requirements that must be addressed first, including verifying eligible officers and adjusting payroll systems to factor in the allowance.
At the same time, funding remains a key hurdle. The Commission noted that the current financial year budget did not provide for the allowance, meaning additional resources must be secured before payments can begin.
Despite these setbacks, the NPSC assured the parliamentary committee that efforts are ongoing to resolve the matter and comply with the court ruling. It, however, did not give a clear timeline on when the payments will be made, saying the process depends on approvals and coordination with other government agencies.
The delay has raised concern among affected legal officers, who maintain that the allowance is due to them following the Court of Appeal decision. The case has also sparked wider debate on pay differences affecting legal professionals working within government.
Parliament’s Committee on Administration and Internal Security is expected to continue reviewing the issue and may propose measures to speed up the process.
The situation now puts focus on how quickly the Commission and other state agencies can act to enforce the court ruling, as the outcome could influence similar claims by in-house counsel across the public service.
