Magwanga says the governor’s actions go beyond politics and have crossed into illegality. 

The deputy governor argued that his constitutional rights as a holder of public office have been violated.

“My office is still closed, and my staff have no access to it. What kind of management is this? You cannot close a public office to deny the holder access. This is a violation of the Constitution,” Magwanga says

“The move is a calculated political power play aimed at undermining my office and obstructing the functions of county governance.”

The dispute erupted after Governor Wanga removed Magwanga from his additional role as County Executive Committee Member for Agriculture, part of a wider cabinet reshuffle that deepened their political rift following the recent Kasipul by‑election.

Magwanga has publicly signalled his intention to contest the governor’s seat in the 2027 general elections, intensifying tensions within the county leadership.

 He accused the county administration of sidelining him and sabotaging his duties.

“You cannot close a public office to deny the holder access. This is a violation of the Constitution… It is only a matter of time before the people of Homa Bay lock you out through the ballot. Your time is up, and you are going home,” he said.

Political allies of the governor have challenged Magwanga’s conduct, with County Finance CECM Solomon Obiero saying critics should resign if they plan to run against the governor.

The matter is now before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu, where Magwanga is seeking orders compelling the county government to restore his office access and official vehicles.

Governor Wanga’s office has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit and the matter is pending hearing 

The post Homa Bay Deputy Governor Magwanga Sues Governor Wanga Over Locked Office, Withdrawn Vehicles appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The proposal, contained in the 2019 Inter-Agency Technical Committee Report on Hardship Areas Reclassification, recommends reducing hardship zones and scrapping some categories altogether, a change that would save the government approximately Ksh 6 billion annually.

However, teachers have strongly opposed the plan, terming it unconstitutional, discriminatory, and insensitive to the realities of those serving in remote and challenging environments.

Speaking during a teachers’ baraza in Murang’a, the Kenya Teachers in Hardship and Arid Areas Welfare Association (KETHAWA) Secretary, Ndung’u Wangenye, said the proposal would unfairly disadvantage thousands of teachers working in marginalised regions.

“The government’s plan to remove Murang’a and other regions from hardship classification is unfair and unconstitutional,” said Wangenye.

“Teachers in these areas face difficult living and working conditions, poor infrastructure, and limited access to healthcare and water.”

He said over 1,200 teachers in Murang’a alone stand to lose their allowances, warning that the withdrawal could worsen teacher shortages in hardship regions as many would seek transfers to more favourable areas.

“Instead of reducing the hardship allowance, the government should increase it to at least half of a teacher’s basic salary,” Wangenye said.

“Teachers are suffering. Some of us work in extremely cold areas where many have fallen ill because of the harsh weather.

The association accused the government of failing to conduct public participation before drafting the reclassification report.

“This report was sneaked in without consulting teachers or stakeholders,” said one teacher at the forum.

“You cannot make policies about hardship areas from air-conditioned offices in Nairobi. Come to the ground and see what we go through.”

Teachers argued that the withdrawal of hardship allowances would undermine access to education, healthcare, and other basic services in remote communities — further marginalising populations already struggling with poverty and poor infrastructure.

The dispute has since moved to court.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, through Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa, has issued injunctive orders barring the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), Public Service Commission (PSC), Teachers Service Commission (TSC), Office of the Prime Cabinet Secretary, and the Attorney General from implementing the proposed changes.

The orders suspend the implementation of the 2019 report pending the hearing and determination of the case filed by KETHAWA.

“We welcome the court’s decision,” said Wangenye. “This is a victory for teachers and for justice. You cannot classify our hardship based on outdated or political considerations.”

In their court petition, KETHAWA argued that the government’s proposal violates Articles 41, 43, and 47 of the Constitution, which guarantee fair labour practices, socio-economic rights, and fair administrative action.

The teachers also invoked provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, claiming that removing hardship allowances would expose them to inhumane working and living conditions.

“This is not just about money; it’s about dignity and fairness,” said Wangenye.

“Teachers in hardship zones work under extreme conditions,poor roads, insecurity, lack of electricity, and minimal healthcare. Removing this allowance would be punishing the very people who keep education alive in these areas.”

The petition seeks to have the court declare the implementation of the 2019 report null and void, and to reinstate hardship allowances for all affected regions.Teachers also challenged the government’s justification that the allowance cuts are part of cost-saving measures, saying the focus should instead be on tackling corruption and wastage of public funds.

“You can’t save Ksh 6 billion by punishing teachers while billions are lost every year through corruption,” said another teacher.

“Let the government seal corruption loopholes instead of targeting hardworking teachers.”

The teachers say they will continue to press for dialogue with relevant state agencies to ensure their welfare and the right to fair compensation are protected.

The post Murang’a Teachers Protest Move to Scrap Hardship Allowances 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.