The MPs led by Ruaraka MP T.J. Kajwang’ spoke on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, during a media briefing at the Red Cross Media Centre in Nairobi, where lawmakers demanded clarity over claims that MPs receive TSC employment letters to distribute to jobseekers in their constituencies.

The controversy follows remarks by Wetang’ula that some MPs receive as many as 10 TSC employment letters to assist constituents seeking teaching jobs, with some politicians allegedly selling the opportunities to desperate jobseekers for up to Sh400,000.

Kajwang’ said he had not seen the letters referred to by the Speaker and challenged him to explain their whereabouts.

“I am still looking for those letters. I want to know where they are, and so that I can take them to Ruaraka,” Kajwang’ said.

The Ruaraka legislator further said he would have no problem receiving legitimate employment opportunities for his constituents, arguing that helping jobseekers would earn political goodwill.

“If I could get the letters from wherever quarters and give them to residents of Ruaraka Constituency, they would be happy. They would vote me in,” he said.

Kajwang’ also rejected the suggestion that MPs could be making money by selling employment opportunities.

“If we are selling them, you know we are not cheap people, Bwana. Please, we are not cheap people to sell,” he said.

He challenged Wetang’ula to explain the claims before Parliament, saying MPs would demand answers when the Speaker addresses the matter on the Floor of the House.

“As to whether Speaker Wetang’ula went out there and said what he said, we will wait for him on the Floor to tell us where those letters are. If he is holding them in his office, we will break that door to get those letters,” Kajwang’ said.

Seme MP James Nyikal, who spoke alongside Kajwang’, also distanced himself and fellow Nyanza lawmakers from the alleged arrangement.

“I know for myself, I know for these members, we did not accompany Hon Wetang’ula to State House and were given letters for TSC recruitment,” Nyikal said.

“I think that is the basic answer that we can tell you,” he added.

The allegations have triggered renewed debate over the independence of the TSC and the manner in which public teaching positions are allocated.

Article 237 of the Constitution gives the Commission responsibility for registering trained teachers and recruiting and employing registered teachers.

National Assembly Education Committee chairman Julius Melly has said the committee will not tolerate the sale or political distribution of TSC employment letters and would consider credible complaints and seek evidence.

The controversy comes as thousands of teachers compete for limited opportunities. TSC has advertised 20,000 permanent and pensionable teaching vacancies for Junior Secondary Schools, with applications running from August 18 to August 31, 2026.

The Commission has also advertised 34,016 promotion opportunities.

The post ODM MPs Deny Selling TSC Job Letters for Sh400,000 appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The judgment, delivered yesterday in consolidated petitions led by Katiba Institute, split the three-judge bench.

Justices Fred Ogola and Stephen Githinji carried the majority decision, while Justice Jairus Ngaah broke away in a dissent that accused the President of recycling Cabinet Secretaries he had himself branded ineffective, and of pulling ODM legislators into government through the back door.

The majority decision found that of the Cabinet’s 25 members, only seven are women against 18 men, translating to roughly 28 percent female representation against the constitutionally required minimum of one-third, or nine members.

The judges further ruled that the Secretary to the Cabinet cannot be included in the computation because Article 152(1) of the Constitution defines the Cabinet as comprising only the President, Deputy President, Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretaries.

“The current Cabinet does not comply with the two-thirds gender principle,” the judges held, directing that “the President is directed to make appointments to ensure that the Cabinet is compliant with Article 27 of the Constitution within 120 days.”

The petitions arose from President Ruto’s decision to dissolve his Cabinet in July 2024 following nationwide youth-led protests, before reappointing several former Cabinet Secretaries and bringing a number of 16 ODM politicians and party officials into government without a formal coalition agreement into what State House described as a broad-based or national unity government

On the question of whether the President acted constitutionally by reappointing Cabinet Secretaries he had dismissed only weeks earlier, the majority held that his powers under Article 152(5)(b) to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Secretaries are broad and that dismissal alone does not automatically trigger integrity concerns under Chapter Six of the Constitution.

The bench similarly upheld the National Assembly’s vetting of the Cabinet, finding public participation requirements were met, and ruled that the appointment of the Attorney-General followed proper constitutional procedure, rejecting arguments that the office should have undergone the kind of competitive process used for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ngaah sharply questioned the President’s decision in returning the very Cabinet Secretaries he had branded ineffective to their old dockets.

“Why would the President renominate people that he found to be ineffective and dismissed them to the same positions?” Justice Ngaah posed, arguing that under Article 259(10) of the Constitution, a dismissed State officer can only be reappointed if still qualified for office.

He said the President’s own reasons for dismissing the Cabinet undermined any justification for their reappointment.

Justice Ngaah was equally unsparing on the ODM leaders appointment in government, tracing Kenya’s history of multiparty struggle before concluding that absorbing opposition legislators into Cabinet outside a formal coalition violated the law.

“Opposition MPs can only be co-opted into government through the framework of Sections 10 and 11 of the Political Parties Act,” he ruled, adding that “the only means that a ruling party can partner with the opposition is through the framework of a coalition.”

In some of the strongest remarks in the judgment, Justice Ngaah accused the President of failing to uphold the Constitution.

“When the President frustrates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to rise up and safeguard the Constitution!” he declared, citing Article 131(2)(a), which requires the Head of State to respect, uphold and safeguard the Constitution.

The petitions had targeted Ruto’s broad-based government push following the July 2024 youth-led protests that forced him to dissolve his entire Cabinet, and the subsequent inclusion of ODM figures in what State House branded a “national unity” arrangement.

While the majority ruling spares Ruto on the politically sensitive reappointment and opposition-absorption questions, the binding order compelling a Cabinet reshuffle within 120 days still hands the President a fresh headache, forcing him back to the negotiating table over portfolios just as his broad-based government arrangement appeared to be stabilizing.

The Attorney-General’s appointment, the only issue on which all three judges agreed, was unanimously upheld as constitutional.

The post Court Orders Ruto to Reshuffle Cabinet Within 120 Days Over Gender Rule Breach appeared first on Insider Bits News.