Why DIG Eliud Lagat was not suspended- police commission
Leley explained that Sections 88 and 89 of the NPSC Act outline disciplinary offences applicable to members of the National Police Service (NPS), along with the procedures for disciplinary proceedings, as further detailed in the NPS Service Standing Orders (SSO) and NPSC discipline regulations.
The National Police Service Commission (NPSC) has said it lacks the power to initiate the removal of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Eliud Lagat from office, explaining that he is a commissioner within the same commission and also a state officer.
NPSC Chief Executive Officer Peter Kiptanui Leley told the court that the commission could only have taken disciplinary action against Lagat if the Inspector General (IG) of Police had made such a recommendation but IG Douglas Kanja has not submitted any request to that effect.
More To Read
- Police bosses, DPP sued over Saba Saba protest arrests
- Court detains man accused of using Central OCS Taalam’s phone to extort family and lawyer
- CS Murkomen spells out new rules on use of firearms as police brutality cases rise
- Rex Masai inquest reveals major gaps in police investigation
- NPSC accuses National Police Service of stalling reforms, blocking its constitutional mandate
- Court declines to give orders stopping DIG Eliud Lagat from resuming work
Leley explained that Sections 88 and 89 of the NPSC Act outline disciplinary offences applicable to members of the National Police Service (NPS), along with the procedures for disciplinary proceedings, as further detailed in the NPS Service Standing Orders (SSO) and NPSC discipline regulations.
“While the DIGs are members of the NPS under the command of the IG and subject to discipline, it is set out expressly in Section 8A that the DIGs shall command, control and administer the services for which they are responsible,” Leley stated.
“There is, therefore, no basis for the claim that the NPSC should have initiated disciplinary action or control under the NPS Act, in light of the Eighth Schedule to Cap 84 and Sections 88 and 89 of the NPSC Act, Cap 85.”
Leley was responding to a suit filed by activist Eliud Matindi, who has sued the commission for failing to take action against Lagat, who stepped aside amid investigations into the murder of Homa Bay teacher and blogger Albert Ojwang. Lagat, however, dismissed reports that he had stepped aside and said he was on leave.
Ojwang died on June 8, while in custody at Central Police Station in Nairobi, after being arrested by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) following a complaint of cyberbullying filed by Lagat.
Leley added that the NPSC recognises that members of the NPS serve within a national security organ, and that queries regarding the use or abuse of police powers which do not fall under disciplinary action could instead attract civil or criminal liability, or be handled under other laws by policing authorities.
He further said that the commission is legally bound to allow the entities authorised by law to conclude investigations into Ojwang’s death and to issue their report so the NPSC can then decide on any disciplinary action for members of the service named in that report.
“The commission acknowledges that it has responded to queries raised in Parliament over the death of Ojwang and is aware that investigations are ongoing into the circumstances surrounding his death,” Leley stated.
“Whereas Section 10(1)(g) of the NPSC Act states that the commission shall not undertake criminal investigations, it shall exercise its disciplinary mandate based on any investigation report submitted to it by the IG under Section 10(4)(f) of Cap 85, or by any other legal authority such as the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) and other policing oversight bodies mandated to address police misconduct.”
Top Stories Today
