The National Police Service Commission (NPSC) has strongly defended Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) of Police, Mr. Douglas Kanja Lagat, in response to a petition questioning his suitability to remain in office following the controversial death of blogger Albert Omondi Ojwang’ while in police custody.
In a detailed affidavit filed in court, NPSC Chief Executive Officer Peter Kiptanui Leley stated that there is no evidence linking DIG Lagat to the fatal incident, nor is he the subject of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
“The ongoing investigations have not indicated to directly target or implicate the 1st Interested Party [Lagat] as a subject of either criminal or disciplinary inquiry,” Leley affirmed.
According to the affidavit, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) have directed their attention to six other individuals, who are now facing murder charges before the Kibera Law Courts.
Mr. Lagat, Leley said, has not been charged or held personally responsible in relation to the incident.
“The fact that the 1st Interested Party lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations cannot in itself be construed as evidence of culpability or used to justify adverse inferences,” Leley said.
The high-profile case has stirred public concern over police accountability and chain-of-command responsibility.
However, Leley emphasized that the DIG’s act of temporarily stepping aside was voluntary and driven by a desire to uphold accountability and transparency,not an admission of guilt.
“At no point did the 1st Interested Party concede unfitness or incapacity to discharge the functions of his office,” Leley said, referencing Lagat’s public letter dated June 16, 2025, in which he announced his decision to step aside to avoid any perception of interference with investigations.
The affidavit dismisses claims that a vacancy was created in the office of the DIG-Kenya Police Service (KPS), clarifying that the move was purely administrative and did not trigger the constitutional or statutory requirements for fresh recruitment.
“There exists no legal or constitutional basis to commence a recruitment process,” Leley stated, adding that the temporary designation of a senior officer to manage administrative tasks in Lagat’s absence did not amount to an acting appointment.
He maintained that under Section 13 of the National Police Service Act, recruitment for the DIG position can only begin if a vacancy arises through resignation, removal, retirement, or death—all of which are not applicable in this case.
Leley further rebutted accusations that the NPSC violated Articles 245(3), 246(3)(b), or 249 of the Constitution by allowing Lagat to step aside, asserting that the Inspector-General of Police had sought and received the Commission’s acknowledgment of the administrative leave.
“The administrative arrangements put in place did not create a new office holder nor elevate the 2nd Interested Party (Lgat’s assistant Tito) to the status of acting DIG,” Leley added.
The NPSC boss argued that the petition filed by activist Eliud Matindi is grounded on misinterpretations of law and speculative claims.
“The Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025 and the accompanying Petition are premised on misapprehensions of fact and law,” he said.
“They ought to be dismissed with costs.”
