The High Court has ruled that the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) has no constitutional authority to recruit, train, employ, promote, suspend, or dismiss officers of the National Police Service (NPS).
Delivering the judgment, Justice Helen Wasilwa clarified that such powers rest exclusively with the Inspector General (IG) under Article 245 of the Constitution. She emphasized that the Constitution clearly defines the roles of the IG and the NPSC, ensuring the operational independence of the police.
“The Commission is not a national security organ under Article 239(1) of the Constitution. Its role is limited to policy, oversight, and disciplinary control not recruitment or deployment,” Justice Wasilwa stated.
The court issued a permanent injunction barring the NPSC from conducting any recruitment or human resource processes, including the implementation of its September 19, 2025, recruitment advertisement published through Legal Notice No. 159. The judge declared the notice unconstitutional, null, and void.
Justice Wasilwa added that granting the NPSC powers over recruitment and deployment would compromise the operational autonomy of the IG, a safeguard that ensures professionalism and accountability within the police service.
She further directed that both the National Police Service Act and the National Police Service Commission Act be reviewed to align with the Constitution and to eliminate ambiguity in their respective mandates.
“The National Police Service is a critical institution whose operations must remain insulated from administrative interference,” she said.
The contested legal notice had sought to recruit police constables and cadets under the supervision of the NPSC, prompting a constitutional challenge on the grounds of violating the doctrine of separation of powers between the Commission and the IG’s office.
Justice Wasilwa concluded by declaring that any recruitment conducted by the NPSC without the authority of the Inspector General is unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
No order as to costs was issued, as the case raised significant public interest on the governance of Kenya’s security institutions.
