The petition by Dr. Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Karanja Matindi, a Kenyan resident in Bournemouth, United Kingdom, targets the entire chain of events that culminated in Meja’s appointment, from the Selection Panel’s shortlisting to President William Ruto’s gazette notice of February 27, 2026.

At the heart of the case is a simple but explosive question on whether can a sitting PSC commissioner be reappointed to the same commission in a different role, effectively extending his tenure beyond the six-year constitutional limit?

The petitioners say no, and they want the court to say so too, urgently.

“On March 4,2026, the 3rd Respondent started his tenure as chairperson of PSC upon taking the oath of office, which action is unconstitutional null and void.”

Meja was first appointed as a PSC member on January 16, 2025, via Gazette Notice No. 386, and assumed office on January 20, 2025.

Under Article 250(6)(a) of the Constitution, PSC commissioners serve a single, non-renewable six-year term.

The petitioners argue that by accepting appointment as chairperson, a new six-year term starting February 27, 2026, Meja would effectively serve until 2032, more than thirteen years in total as a PSC commissioner.

The petitioners had raised the alarm well before Meja’s appointment was gazetted.

On December 10, 2025, they wrote to the PSC Selection Panel contesting the shortlisting of four sitting commissioners, including Meja, for the chairperson vacancy.

On February 18, 2026, they submitted a formal statement to the National Assembly opposing his approval. Both interventions were ignored.

In their statement to the National Assembly, the petitioners warned that approval and appointment of Francis Meja as Chair of the Public Service Commission would therefore be a violation of Article 250(6)(a) of the Constitution and Section 7(4), Public Service Commission Act, which limit the term in office of a member of the Public Service Commission to a single term of six years.

The National Assembly nonetheless approved Meja’s appointment on February 25, 2026, on the recommendation of its Departmental Committee on Labour.

The petitioners argue that approval was a violation of Articles 10, 232, 233(3)(c and d), 249(1) and 250(3, 4 and 6) of the Constitution.

The petition invokes a binding precedent the petitioners themselves secured last year.

In Gikenyi B. & another v National Assembly & 6 others (Petition E018 of 2025), the High Court held that a serving member of a constitutional commission cannot apply for a vacancy in the same commission if doing so would breach the mandatory term limit.

All the current respondents were parties to that case.

The petitioners charge that all respondents “aided and abetted the 3rd – 6th Respondents’ impugned actions of applying, shortlisting, interviewing, recommending for nomination, the nomination, approval, appointment, and assumption to office of chairperson of PSC, knowing they were ineligible for appointment to that office.”

Through their urgent application, the petitioners are asking the court to suspend Gazette Notice No. 2573 and bar Meja from performing any functions as PSC Chairperson while the petition is heard.

In the main petition, they seek to have his appointment declared invalid, and ask for a permanent bar on Meja and three other commissioners, Mary Wanjira Kimonye, Boya Molu, and Dr. Francis Owino Otieno, from holding any state or public office in Kenya.

The matter has not yet been assigned a hearing date.

Katiba Institute, the PSC itself, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission have been joined as interested parties.

The post Petition filed Seeking to Oust Newly Sworn PSC Chairperson Over Constitutional Breach appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In the urgent petition filed Before Milimani High Court, activist Francis Awino argues that Akech’s continued tenure at the helm of the NCA has been marked by regulatory failure, administrative maladministration, and a systematic disregard for public safety, particularly in Nairobi County where several buildings have collapsed or been flagged as unsafe.

The petitioner, who identifies himself as President of Vybe Tribe, a civil society movement, is seeking multiple declarations and orders, including a finding that Akech is unfit to hold public office.

“A declaration is sought that the Respondent, Maurice Akech, in his capacity as Executive Director of the National Construction Authority, has acted in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of Kenya and is therefore unfit to hold public office,” the petition states.

The case centers on the collapse of a twelve-storey mixed-use building at Plot No. 209/5909/10, South C Ward, Lang’ata Sub-County, along Kiganjo Muhoho Avenue on January 2, 2026.

The collapse resulted in at least two individuals being trapped and one person injured during construction.

According to the petition, investigations and situational reports by Nairobi City County and NCA revealed that the building, developed and constructed by Abyan Consulting Limited, was non-compliant at the time of collapse.

The petitioner claims there was no evidence of approved structural plans, statutory inspections, geotechnical reports, or proper site supervision.

The activist alleges that Nairobi City County issued enforcement notices to the developer in May, July, and December 2025, highlighting numerous infractions, including non-compliance with approved plans, unsafe construction practices, and lack of statutory inspections.

“The Respondent NCA through its boss Akech failed to enforce these notices or take any remedial action, allowing continued illegal construction and placing the public at grave risk,” the petition reads.

Awino further alleges that despite architectural plans being approved for twelve floors in December 2023, additional floors were constructed without statutory approvals, in blatant violation of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act and relevant Nairobi City County by-laws.

The petition states that Akech, in his official capacity, acknowledged the non-compliance of the building in a public statement dated January 2, 2026, admitting that the project was registered on November 8, 2023, and was “non-compliant” at the time of collapse.

The activist wants the court to issue an order removing or suspending Akech from office, citing what he terms demonstrated incompetence, negligence, disregard for public safety, and failure to uphold integrity and accountability.

“The court does issue an interim order suspending the Respondent, Maurice Akech, from the office of Executive Director of the National Construction Authority pending the hearing and determination of the Application and Petition filed herein,” Awino seeks.

The petition also cites a pattern of structural failures in Nairobi, including incidents in Zimmerman in 2023 and Kahawa West in October 2024, attributing them to poor workmanship, substandard materials, and inadequate statutory oversight.

Among the reliefs sought, the petitioner wants the court to declare that Akech has violated Articles 10, 21, 23, 35, 47, 73, and 201 of the Constitution, relating to national values, public safety, administrative justice, leadership integrity, and public service principles.

The petition argues that Akech’s actions constitute breaches of the National Construction Authority Act, the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, NCA Regulations 2014, and Nairobi City County building by-laws.

The activist is asking the court to compel the NCA to immediately halt all ongoing construction projects in Nairobi County that lack approved structural plans, ensure mandatory inspections are conducted before work continues, and enforce sanctions against developers, contractors, and professionals who violate regulatory standards.

“A mandatory order is sought directing the Respondent to take immediate action to enforce compliance with building and construction regulations in respect of all non-compliant projects in Nairobi County,” the petition states.

The activist further argues that Akech’s alleged inaction despite repeated warnings amounts to abuse of office.

“The Respondent’s failure to act, in the face of repeated enforcement notices and known violations, constitutes administrative maladministration, gross negligence, and abuse of office,” the filing adds.

Additionally, Awino wants the court to order Akech to provide in court a full account of all enforcement actions taken or omitted regarding buildings in Nairobi County that were flagged for non-compliance between 2021 and 2026 within 14 days.

Awino further targets approvals involving Abyan Consulting Limited and other developers implicated in unsafe construction.

“A declaration is sought that any approval, registration, or licensing decisions made by the Respondent in relation to Abyan Consulting Limited, or any other developer involved in unsafe or non-compliant construction, are null and void to the extent that such decisions contributed to the endangerment of human life,” the petition states.

Finally, the activist wants the court to impose personal accountability, including recommendations for disciplinary action, deregistration, or referral to oversight bodies for professional negligence.

The case which is pending hearing and directions before Justice Chacha Mwita names the State Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and National Construction Authority as an interested parties.

The post Activist Moves to Court Seeking Removal of NCA Boss Akech Over South C Building Collapse appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Delivering the ruling in the case Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted the orders sought by the petitioners restraining four individuals from taking oath or performing any functions as chairperson or members of the MCK Board.

The petitioners, Issa Elanyi Chemao and two others,had filed an application dated August 4, 2025, seeking conservatory orders to stop the appointments made through Kenya Gazette Notices No. 10091 and 10092 of July 25, 2025.

In his detailed ruling, Justice Mwamuye found that while the initial ex parte orders issued on August 5, 2025, were improperly obtained due to “material non-disclosure”, the petitioners nonetheless met the legal threshold for the issuance of conservatory orders after a full inter partes hearing.

“Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits, and submissions of all parties, I am persuaded that the petitioners have demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success,” Justice Mwamuye stated.

“Accordingly, conservatory orders are hereby issued staying further implementation of the impugned gazette notices.”

The orders effectively restrain Joseph Maina Muiruri, Susan Karago, Timothy Wanyonyi, and Tabitha Mutemi from assuming office, taking oath, or performing any functions as chairperson and members of the Media Council of Kenya until January 22, 2026, unless the orders are extended by the court.

“The conservatory orders issued shall lapse on January 22, 2026, unless otherwise extended,” the judge ruled.

On the issue of costs, the court allowed the Notice of Motion dated August 7, 2025, filed by the 1st and 3rd Respondents — the Cabinet Secretary for ICT and another respondent, who had sought to set aside the ex parte conservatory orders of August 5.

Justice Mwamuye found merit in the application to that extent.

“The ex parte orders are hereby set aside, and costs assessed at KSh150,000 are awarded to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, payable by the Petitioners within 45 days,” the judge directed.

However, Justice Mwamuye made no order as to costs regarding the petitioners’ substantive application dated August 4, noting that the matter raised important constitutional questions that warrant full hearing.

The court further issued a case management timetable, directing all parties to exchange submissions ahead of the scheduled judgement early next year.

“The petitioners shall file and serve any further affidavit and written submissions by October 31, 2025,” the judge directed.

“The respondents and interested parties shall file their submissions by November 21, 2025, and any rebuttal submissions, if necessary, shall be filed by December 10, 2025.”

The matter will then proceed for highlighting of submissions on December 15, 2025, with judgement scheduled for January 22, 2026, both sessions to be conducted virtually at 10:30 a.m.

The case challenges the legality and transparency of the recent appointments to the Media Council of Kenya Board, arguing that the process allegedly contravened constitutional and statutory requirements.

The respondents, represented by State Counsel from the Office of the Attorney General, had opposed the petition, arguing that due process was followed in the appointments and that the applicants had not demonstrated a violation of the Constitution.

The interim orders now halt any action relating to the swearing-in or official commencement of duties by the contested board members, pending final determination of the petition early next year.

The post High Court Halts Appointment of Media Council of Kenya Board Members appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Delivering a detailed ruling on Friday, October 3, 2025, Justice Chacha Mwita dismissed a preliminary objection filed by Lagat and the National Police Service (NPS), ruling that the court indeed has jurisdiction to hear and determine the constitutional issues raised in the case.

Through lawyer Cecil Miller, Lagat had argued that the case was wrongly filed before the High Court and should have instead been lodged at the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), as it allegedly concerned internal administrative decisions within the police service.

Miller, representing Lagat and the NPS, submitted that the decision by the DIG to step aside for 18 days and appoint his Principal Assistant Patrick Tito to act in his position was an internal human resource matter — purely administrative in nature and not constitutional.

He maintained that under the National Police Service Act and Service Standing Orders, the DIG was within his mandate to temporarily step aside and assign duties to another officer to ensure continuity of command within the police structure.

“The petition raises issues that touch on the administration and internal management of the police service,” Miller argued. “It does not raise constitutional questions but concerns the respondent’s right to exercise discretion within the confines of his office.”

The Attorney General, appearing for the NPS and the Inspector General, supported Lagat’s position, insisting that the High Court lacked jurisdiction since no constitutional right had been violated.

The State Law Office maintained that the petition amounted to interference with the internal management of the National Police Service.

However, the petitioner, Eliud Matindi, a UK-based activist, opposed the objection, insisting that the petition raised serious constitutional questions on whether a Deputy Inspector General can legally step aside from a constitutional office and unilaterally appoint someone to act in his stead.

Matindi argued that Lagat’s decision to step aside and appoint Tito was unconstitutional since the power to appoint or designate an acting Deputy Inspector General is vested only in the President, upon the recommendation of the National Police Service Commission (NPSC),not in the hands of the office holder himself.

In his ruling, Justice Mwita sided with the petitioner, finding that the case raises substantive constitutional questions deserving full hearing.

“I am unable to agree with the respondent that this court has no jurisdiction. I affirm that this court has jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is overruled,” Justice Mwita declared.

He went on to explain that the core issues in the petition were not about employment disputes or workplace grievances but about the interpretation and application of the Constitution, particularly regarding the powers and limits of a constitutional office holder.

“The issues raised do not include determination of employer-employee relationship or related matters,” the judge said.

“Rather, the issues are purely on the interpretation of the Constitution and the law, namely whether the first interested party’s actions were constitutional and legal.”

Justice Mwita further emphasized that the position of Deputy Inspector General is established by the Constitution, not the Employment Act, and therefore carries constitutional, not contractual, responsibilities.

“The position of Deputy Inspector General and the manner of appointment having been created by the Constitution has a constitutional connotation,” he ruled.

“The holder of that office is not an employee in terms of the Employment Act to make this petition fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Court.”

Citing Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution, the judge reiterated that the High Court has the express mandate to interpret the Constitution and determine whether any act or omission violates it.

“Under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution, this Court is expressly mandated to hear any question on the interpretation of the Constitution, including determining whether anything said or done under the authority of this Constitution or any law is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution,” said Justice Mwita.

He explained that the questions raised — such as whether Lagat could legally step aside and appoint an acting deputy — fall strictly within the High Court’s jurisdiction.

“This Court will have to determine whether anything that was said or done by the first interested party under the authority of the Constitution or the law is inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution or the law,” he stated.

“In other words, the petition seeks this Court’s determination whether the first interested party’s actions were within the framework of the Constitution and the law.”

Justice Mwita also quoted Section 9 of the National Police Service Act, which provides that both Deputy Inspector Generals — in charge of the Kenya Police Service and the Administration Police Service — shall be appointed in accordance with the Constitution and upon recommendation by the NPSC.

“The position of Deputy Inspector General and the manner of appointment having been created by the Constitution and reinforced by statute, has a constitutional connotation, and therefore, the holder is not an employee under the Employment Act,” he emphasized.

In his concluding remarks, Justice Mwita dismissed the objection by Lagat and the NPS.

“In these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the Respondent and First Interested Party that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this petition. Rather, I affirm that this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the petition. Consequently, on the conditions stated above, the preliminary objection is overruled and dismissed with no order as to costs.”

The court has now directed that the case proceeds to a full hearing where the substantive questions will be addressed,including whether the DIG’s step-aside was legally valid and whether his appointment of an acting deputy was within his constitutional powers.

The matter will come up for mention on November 17, 2025, for the parties to file and highlight their written submissions.

The post Court Declines to Dismiss Petition Challenging DIG Lagat’s Step-Aside Decision appeared first on Insider Bits News.

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.

The post Court Battle Brews as EACC Backs President-Led Graft Team appeared first on Insider Bits News.