In a surprising shift, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has told the High Court that it is ready to work under a newly created multi-agency anti-corruption team chaired by the Executive Office of the President.
In a replying affidavit filed at the Milimani High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Division, EACC’s Director of Legal Services and Asset Recovery, David Too, confirmed the agency’s support for the presidentially-established Multi-Agency Team on War Against Corruption (MAT-WAC), despite its leadership by the Executive Office of the President.
“The EACC is therefore, in principle, in favour of MAT-WAC framework so long as the independence of the Commission is safeguarded,” said Too in the affidavit.
This admission comes in response to a petition filed on August 20, 2025, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the new team, whose establishment was announced via a Presidential Proclamation on August 18, 2025.
The proclamation brought together 11 institutions, including the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), National Intelligence Service (NIS), Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), and the EACC itself.
The inclusion of the Executive Office of the President as Chair has drawn scrutiny, with petitioners arguing it threatens the autonomy of independent commissions.
But EACC downplayed those concerns, saying: “Independence does not mean acting in isolation from other state organs,” stated Too.
“The Commission is required to collaborate with other state agencies in the exercise of its mandate since the fight against corruption requires all hands on deck.”
Too further defended EACC’s participation in MAT-WAC by citing multiple legal and policy frameworks supporting inter-agency cooperation, including Section 11(3) of the EACC Act, Article 38 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and Supreme Court precedents.
“Collaboration creates synergy while leveraging on the unique strengths of each entity,” he noted.
“This prevents inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and operational failures.”
Despite reaffirming EACC’s status as a constitutionally independent commission under Article 249(2) of the Constitution, the affidavit emphasized that “integration, linkages, partnerships, teamwork” are critical tools in a modern, whole-of-government anti-corruption strategy.
However, legal experts others argue the statement that EACC is “ready to work under” a team chaired by the President’s office could set a dangerous precedent.
“This is more than just collaboration. It borders on surrendering autonomy,” said a constitional lawyer familiar with the case, who requested anonymity.
In his affidavit, Too emphasized that the anti-graft body’s involvement in MAT-WAC is not a constitutional compromise but a strategic necessity.
“The members of MAT-WAC are institutions with crucial information that could expedite investigation and prosecution of corruption offences and recovery of assets obtained from corrupt activities,” he said.
The petitioners, led by activist Dr. Magare Gikenyi, are seeking a declaration that the presidential proclamation violates the Constitution by compromising the independence of commissions like the EACC.
They claim that the president has ursuped the mandate of constitutional offices including EACC, ODPP and the graft Taskforce is therefore illegal, and unconstitutional.
