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.

Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani and Deepak Kumar Kamani have petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court decision that placed them on their defence after prosecutors established a prima facie case against them.

The duo wants the appellate court to conduct what they describe as an independent and comprehensive review of the lower court’s ruling.

However, Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga has firmly resisted the application, arguing that the trial must proceed without interruption.

Through Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Jami Yamina, the prosecution has maintained that allowing such a review would undermine the integrity of the ongoing trial.

“There are sufficient procedural and evidential safeguards available to the applicants should they proceed to mount their defence, including invoking their right to remain silent if they believe they would otherwise be required to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case,” Yamina submitted to the court.

The DPP’s office contends that such a review by the appellate court would prejudice the trial court’s ability to make independent findings.

Yamina emphasized that the High Court should not be faulted for not providing full reasoning at this stage, as doing so would equally compromise the trial court’s capacity to independently evaluate the evidence.

Yamina further argued that the applicants had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify halting the proceedings, and urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application and allow the trial to run its full course.

The current legal battle stems from a January 19, 2024 ruling by a trial magistrate who had acquitted all accused persons, finding that prosecutors had not established a prima facie case.

The DPP challenged this decision, and Justice Benjamin Musyoki of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division subsequently set aside the acquittal, determining that the evidence did warrant placing the accused on their defence.

Justice Musyoki directed that the matter be mentioned before the Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate’s Court on August 7, 2025, with all accused persons required to appear in person.

The case involves a roster of former high-ranking government officials and businessmen accused of orchestrating one of Kenya’s most notorious corruption scandals.

Among the accused are former Finance Minister David Mwiraria (now deceased), Dave Munya Mwangi (former Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President), Joseph Mbui Magari (former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance), and David Lumumba Onyonka.

The Kamani family members Rashmi Chamanlal Kamani, Deepak Kumar Kamani, and their late father Chamanlal Vrajlal Kamani, also face serious allegations.

At the heart of the case is an allegation that the accused conspired to defraud the Government of Kenya of 40 million Euros through a purported Supplier’s Credit Agreement for the modernization of police security equipment and accessories, dated December 17, 2003.

The offences allegedly occurred between October 30, 2003, and April 14, 2004, in Nairobi.

The three Kamani family members face an additional charge of fraudulent acquisition of public property.

According to court records, on or about April 14, 2004, they allegedly received 1.2 million Euros from the Ministry of Finance under false pretenses, claiming to finance the police modernization project through offshore accounts in Switzerland held under Apex Finance Corporation Ltd. and Apex Finance International Corporation Ltd.

The late Mwiraria, along with Mwangi, Magari, and Onyonka, face distinct charges including engaging in a project without prior planning, willfully failing to follow procurement laws, and abuse of office.

All accused persons entered not guilty pleas when initially arraigned.

The prosecution called 37 witnesses during the trial proceedings.

However, in January, the trial court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient and acquitted all the accused under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the DPP filed an appeal on January 29, 2024.

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions George Mong’are argued that the trial magistrate had erred by failing to properly assess the evidence, which he maintained established a case warranting the accused to be placed on their defence.

The Anglo Leasing scandal, which dates back more than two decades, remains one of the most significant corruption cases in Kenya’s history, involving allegations of fraudulent contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros for security-related projects that were either never delivered or grossly overpriced.

The post Anglo Leasing: Kamani Brothers Clash with DPP Over Attempt to Stall Graft Proceedings appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a detailed replying affidavit filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division at Milimani, Mbadi dismissed claims that the Executive had irregularly or illegally established the fund, terming the petitioners’ fears misconceived, speculative and unfounded in law.

The petition, lodged by four individuals, challenges Cabinet’s December decision to approve the establishment of the National Infrastructure Fund PLC, accusing the government of bypassing constitutional safeguards on public finance, parliamentary oversight and public participation.

The petitioners argue that creating the entity through a Cabinet resolution threatens transparency and violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including Articles on sovereignty of the people, prudent use of public resources and separation of powers.

But Mbadi paints a different picture,one of a policy instrument designed to unlock private capital and accelerate Kenya’s long-term development ambitions in food security, transport, logistics, energy and the digital economy.

“On 16th December 2025, the Cabinet considered a proposal from my Ministry for the setting up of an entity whose purpose is to mobilize resources to finance large scale infrastructure,” Mbadi says.

“The entity is intended to mobilize excess of Kenya Shillings Five Trillion and to operate as a Limited Liability Company. The entity was christened, the National Infrastructure Fund.”

A central pillar of Mbadi’s argument is that despite its name, the National Infrastructure Fund is not a “fund” as contemplated under Article 206 of the Constitution, which governs public funds such as the Consolidated Fund.

“Though the entity was described as a ‘Fund’, its objects are not those of a ‘Fund’ within the meaning of Article 206 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010,” he states, adding that the petitioners had “fundamentally misconceived, mischaracterized, and misrepresented the intention, structure, and legal design” of the proposed entity.

According to the CS, the NIF is intended to be incorporated under the Companies Act as a Government Owned Enterprise with full corporate personality,capable of suing and being sued, holding property and entering into commercial transactions in its own name.

He anchors this position on the Government Owned Enterprises Act, arguing that the law expressly allows the State to establish entities structured as public limited companies while remaining subject to oversight mechanisms.

Mbadi also takes issue with the conservatory orders obtained by the petitioners, which effectively froze the implementation of the Cabinet resolution.

He argues that the legal threshold for such orders was not met, insisting that no public funds have been appropriated or spent and that the process remains at an internal Executive stage.

“The Petitioners have not demonstrated that the failure to grant conservatory orders would render the Petition nugatory, particularly in light of the fact that no irreversible legal, financial, or operational actions have been undertaken,” he states.

He further warns that early judicial intervention risks undermining the doctrine of separation of powers.

“Judicial intervention at this stage would offend the doctrine of separation of powers, as the action sought to be challenged still lies wholly within the purview of the Executive.”

The Treasury boss emphasises that the entity has not yet been formally established, countering claims that the fund is already operational. “Contrary to the Petitioners’ allegation… the necessary processing is still underway,” he says.

A key concern raised by the petitioners is that placing vast financial power in a limited liability company could dilute parliamentary and audit oversight.

Mbadi, however, insists that the proposed structure strengthens rather than weakens transparency.

He outlines several statutory safeguards, including half-yearly performance reports to Cabinet and the National Assembly, mandatory audits by the Auditor-General, public disclosure of annual reports and board appointments, and budgetary appropriation by Parliament where required.

“Funding to the entity will be approved by Parliament in an Appropriations Act as envisaged in Article 221 of the Constitution,” Mbadi notes, adding that proceeds from privatisation would flow into the Consolidated Fund before any lawful withdrawal.

He maintains that the incorporation of the entity does not in any way diminish its public character, constitutional accountability, or statutory oversight, but instead provides a robust legal framework for the transparent, efficient, and responsible management of public resources.

On accusations that the government sidestepped public participation, Mbadi argues that the Cabinet decision was merely an internal policy determination that had not yet triggered legislative or financial action requiring public input.

“Public participation shall be undertaken at the appropriate stage where constitutional or statutory processes… are triggered, and it is therefore premature and speculative to allege a violation at this point,” he says.

He also defends the President’s role, stating that the Head of State acted within constitutional mandate in chairing Cabinet and approving policy direction, while Parliament would still exercise its legislative and appropriation powers when necessary.

The post CS Mbadi Mounts Fierce Court Defence of Sh5 Trillion Infrastructure Fund, Seeks Lifting of Freeze Orders appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The development casts uncertainty over the society’s ability to collect and distribute royalties to musicians for the foreseeable future.

Milimani High Court Judge Justice Linus Kassan on Monday December 15,2025 declined MCSK’s urgent request to stay the Tribunal’s decision, instead scheduling the matter for inter partes hearing on July 21, 2026.

“Upon perusal of the motion dated December 10, 2025, by MCSK, I direct that the matter be heard inter partes on July 21, 2026,” Justice Kassan ordered.

MCSK, represented by lawyer Dancun O’Kubasu, had moved to the High Court under a certificate of urgency, seeking to suspend the decision of the Tribunal chaired by Elizabeth Lenjo, which barred the society from collecting and distributing royalties.

The motion also sought to restrain KECOBO and the Performing and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) from interfering with its operations.

In its submission, MCSK argued that the Tribunal “erred in law by misinterpreting and misapplying the Copyright Act (Collection Management Regulations, 2020) by imposing a rigid threshold of compliance and failing to properly assess whether the alluded deficiencies amounted to sufficient grounds to deny MCSK registration.”

The Tribunal, in its judgment dated November 25, 2025, discharged interim orders that had temporarily allowed MCSK to collect royalties, effectively revoking its authority to issue unified licenses or operate as a Collection Management Organisation (CMO).

“The interim order of injunction, stopping, barring, restraining, and/or prohibiting the respondent… from interfering with MCSK from the collection and distribution of royalties… is hereby discharged,” said Tribunal chairperson Hon. Elizabeth Lenjo.

The case arises from a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal filed by MCSK on October 16, 2025, challenging KECOBO’s refusal to renew its CMO operating license for the 2025–2026 period.

The Tribunal cited High Court precedents by Justice Chacha Mwita and Justice John Chigiti, revising timelines for KECOBO and other interested parties to respond under Section 21(3) of the Copyright Act.

KECOBO, through lawyer Alex Nyabwengi, maintained that MCSK was operating illegally.

“The appellant is neither approved nor authorised as prescribed under Section 2 of the Copyright Act to carry out functions of a CMO, and thus, the impugned orders seek to permit illegality,” Nyabwengi stated.

On October 14, 2025, KECOBO issued operating licenses to PAVRISK and KAMP Copyright and Related Rights, leaving MCSK, Film Makers Rights Achievers of Kenya (FRAK), and Collective Management Services (CMS) unsuccessful. PAVRISK and KAMP are listed as interested parties in the appeal.

MCSK has also faced internal leadership disputes, with one faction led by Ephantus Wahome Kamau (Chairman) and Ezekiel Mutau (CEO), and another led by Lazarus Muli with Richard Sereti as acting CEO.

KECOBO further highlighted that Section 46(a) of the Copyright Act prohibits collection of royalties based on tariffs not published in the Kenya Gazette.

The regulator cited a July ruling by Justice Mwita nullifying operative tariffs due to lack of meaningful public participation, leaving even approved CMOs without legally binding tariffs to collect royalties.

In response, MCSK argued that KECOBO erred in rejecting its license renewal due to missing certified copies of annual returns, failure to provide audited accounts for the past five years, and absence of proper authorization for rights management.

“KECOBO also erred in law in finding that the appellant failed to provide audited accounts of the CMO for the five years preceding the date of the application,” O’Kubasu said.

With the High Court setting the matter for inter partes hearing on July 21, 2026, the future of MCSK’s royalty collection operations, and the fate of many Kenyan musicians’ earnings, remains in limbo.

The post Blow to MCSK as Court Declines to Suspend Ban on Royalty Collections appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Prof (Dr) Nixon Sifuna issued the summons on November 25,2025 and ordering KNEC to release the results within 14 days.

“The said Dr David Njengere, the CEO of the KNEC, is hereby ordered to appear in person to show cause why he cannot be punished for disobedience of the said orders, and for further orders,” Justice Sifuna ordered.

“KNEC is hereby directed to forthwith comply with the said orders and release the said examination results within 14 days from the date of this ruling; unless there can be in force, any order of stay or a Court judgment setting them aside.”

The matter stems from a National Examinations Appeals Tribunal ruling delivered on March 28,2025, which directed KNEC to reinstate the student’s marks in Music Paper 2 and 3 and issue a valid result slip.

Despite being served with the orders, KNEC has failed to comply.

Justice Sifuna said the CEO’s continued refusal to release the results amounted to deliberate disobedience of a court order.

“Judicial orders are not a proposal or invitation; compliance with them is a must, and disobedience is not an option,” the judge noted.

“Attempts to rationalize non-compliance are unacceptable in any legal system.”

The court has scheduled the matter for mention on December 16, 2025, when Dr Njengere must appear in person to explain why he should not face six months in jail for contempt of court.

“The respondent’s Chief Executive Officer is aware of the orders, their content, and what they require KNEC to do,” Justice Sifuna emphasized.

The case was filed by Sylas Amukobole, the parent and guardian of candidate who sat for the 2024 KCSE Music examination at Lugulu Girls High School.

Amukobole challenged KNEC’s decision to withhold the results, arguing that it was unfair and had no lawful basis.

KNEC, through a replying affidavit by Deputy Director of Research & Quality Assurance Andrew Francis Otieno, argued that the council had obtained a 30-day stay in May 2025 to justify the delay, but the court found that any such stay had lapsed and there was no proof of extension.

Justice Sifuna noted that tribunal orders are enforceable in the High Court and stressed that delays in releasing results undermine the integrity of the examination system.

“When a stay lapses by effluxion of time, the obligation to obey the subject order automatically resumes,” he said.

The post Judge Summons KNEC CEO Njengere Over Withheld 2024 KCSE Music Results appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Benjamin Musyoki ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove key elements of the case against Lenolkulal and his co-accused, Hesbon Jack Wachira Ndathi and Bernard Ltarasi Lesurmat.

“This court finds that the appeals herein are merited and are hereby allowed. The convictions and sentences meted against the appellants… are set aside, and consequently the appellants Moses Kasaine Lenolkulal, Hesbon Jack Wachira Ndathi, and Bernard Ltarasi Lesurmat are hereby acquitted of the offences they were charged with in the said case,” Justice Musyoki declared.

The court also ordered that any fines previously paid by the three be refunded forthwith.

In addition, it set aside the previous order under Section 64 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) that barred the trio from holding public office for ten years, effectively clearing the way for Lenolkulal to seek public positions.

Lenolkulal had initially been convicted on charges of conflict of interest and unlawful acquisition of public property, with the court ruling that he had knowingly acquired a direct private interest in a contract between Oryx Service Station, a company he owned, and the Samburu County Government for the supply of fuel.

Upon conviction, he had been ordered to pay fines totaling Sh85,460,995 or serve a four-year jail term.

Ndathi was accused of acting as a proxy to mask Lenolkulal’s interests, while Lesurmat faced charges of abuse of office.

The trial court had concluded that the three had misappropriated Sh84,695,996.55 from county funds.

However, Justice Musyoki observed that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed.

He noted that the investigating officer had clarified their focus was on potential conflict of interest, not procurement irregularities.

“The trial court in reaching the fine imposed on the appellants relied on the element of benefit to the said appellants. A benefit is an advantage or profit gained from something… The duo cannot be said to have benefited from the entire sum of Sh84,695,996.55, as there were attendant costs and expenses associated with delivery and supply of the fuel. I do not think that this is the kind of benefit contemplated under the Section,” the judge noted.

The Court also questioned the assumption that Lenolkulal and Ndathi shared benefits equally, highlighting that evidence suggested Ndathi was merely a proxy.

Justice Musyoki clarified that for a charge under Section 48 of ACECA to succeed, there must be a quantifiable benefit to the accused or a demonstrable loss to another party.

In this case, the court found that the county had received the fuel and that no procurement irregularities or financial loss had been proven.

Regarding Lesurmat, the court found no evidence of abuse of office or improper benefit.

“The prosecution did not establish any special relationship between Ndathi and Lesurmat… it was not even shown that Lesurmat knew Ndathi at a personal level,” he ruled

The judge also emphasized that Lenolkulal had appropriately disclosed any potential conflict of interest.

“The 1st appellant had sufficiently declared possible conflict of interest, and it was the duty of those responsible for entering the information in the conflict of interest register to make appropriate entries,” Justice Musyoki said.

Last year, the trial court had ruled that Lenolkulal and Ndathi had engaged in conflict of interest and acquired public funds unlawfully.

Magistrate Thomas Nzyoki had stated, “The overwhelming and direct evidence shows that the Governor acted in conflict of interest and acquired direct personal benefit from the supply of fuel. A governor stands prohibited from trading with his county government.”

The post Ex-Samburu Governor Lenolkulal Acquitted by the High Court in Sh84M Graft Case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In the suit filed At Anti-corruption High Court the Commission wants the millions of shillings so far frozen in five bank accounts belonging to the governor, his wife Anne Wanjiru Wamatangi, his son Brian Kimani Wamatangi, and daughter Michelle Wanjiku Wamatangi and five companies associated with him be forfeited to the state as they were acquired corruptly.

Through lawyer Ben Murei, the anti-graft agency says that Governor Wamatangi, while serving as Chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Roads, Transportation and Housing, abused his position to influence the award of government tenders to companies associated with him.

The firms linked to the county boss include Lub Plus Oil & Energy Company Limited, King Group Company Limited, King Construction Company Limited, King Realtors Company Limited, and Quick Fix Auto Garage Limited, all said to have been used to receive irregular payments totaling over Sh813 million.

The alleged misconduct occurred between the 2018 to 2019 and 2021 to 2022 financial years.

According to the EACC, Wamatangi colluded with the companies to engage in fraudulent practices, including submitting forged or falsified bid documents to fraudulently win tenders and falsely demonstrating technical capacity to undertake the works to the detriment of the public.

The Commission argues that his Wife, son, and daughter were used as proxies to conceal the governor’s beneficial ownership of the companies that received payments from KeNHA, KURA, and KeRRA.

The Commission further states that Wamatangi concealed his interest in companies irregularly awarded contracts by purporting to relinquish directorship to close family members and proxies.

Investigations, however, revealed that he remained a signatory to the companies’ bank accounts and continued to transact on them, making him the beneficial owner of the companies involved in the fraudulent dealings.”

Other associates of the governor named in the suit are Francis Njoroge Njenga, Samuel Mwangi Kariuki, Eunice Wairimu Mugo, James Kiarie Njoroge, Anthony Muchoki, and John Kinyanjui.

The Commission say the six acted as directors, signatories, or agents in the network of companies allegedly used to siphon public funds, forming part of the scheme through which Sh813 million was irregularly obtained from government road agencies.

EACC says that Governor Wamatangi and his co-defendants received substantial payments from the three government agencies under their oversight.

According to court documents, Quick Fix Auto GarageLtd received Sh18,796,070, while King Realtors Co. Ltd was paid Sh16,698,272.

King Group Co. Ltd allegedly received Sh29,837,411, while King Construction Co. Ltd was paid Sh438,985,045, making it the largest single recipient of the allegedly misappropriated funds.

Lub Plus Oil & Energy Co. Ltd, a company linked to Wamatangi’s family, received Sh308,788,733 from KeNHA, KURA, and KeRRA.

“These payments were irregular, unlawful and constitute proceeds of corruption,” the Commission stated in court papers.

In its court papers, the EACC accuses Governor Wamatangi of abusing his position to improperly benefit from public contracts by influencing tender awards to companies under his control, engaging in conflict of interest, and holding private stakes in government projects.

The Commission further claims he failed to uphold integrity and transparency, saying he “did not demonstrate honesty in the execution of his public duties and acted contrary to his oath of office as a member of the Senate Committee.”

The suit also accuses the wamatangi and 13 others of violating the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, 2015, through collusion, submission of multiple bids, and falsification of reference letters to secure tenders.

For example, the EACC claims that five companies submitted bids for the same KeRRA project, defeating fair competition and violating procurement laws.

In addition, the Commission argues that the contracts awarded on the basis of fraud, misrepresentations and illegality are illegal, null and void

It further contends that the government cannot be certain it received value for money, and the defendants have been unjustly enriched at the public’s expense.

In July 2025, the High Court granted an order preserving monies held in the bank accounts of the implicated companies, pending conclusion of investigations.

The accounts include Family Bank accounts held in the names of King Group, King Realtors, King Construction, Quick Fix Auto Garage, and Lub Plus Oil & Energy Co. Ltd.

Through its lawyer Murei, the EACC argues that “no one should be allowed to benefit from their own illegal and wrongful acts.”

The Commission claims that the defendants, jointly and severally, acted fraudulently, illegally and/or unlawfully, leading to the misappropriation of public funds totaling Sh813,145,532.40 hence the funds should be forfeited to the state

Justice Lucy Njuguna has directed Governor wamatagi, his wife, childrene and associates to respond to the suit within 10 days ahead of the hearing on November 18,2025

The post EACC files suit to recover Sh813 Million from Kiambu Governor Wamatangi, Wife, and Children in Graft Case 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.