The petition, filed by civil society group Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, challenges whether the Inspector General has the constitutional mandate to manage police payroll or whether the responsibility belongs to the Commission.
Activists challenge Inspector General’s payroll powers
The petitioners argue that payroll management is a human resource function that should fall under the National Police Service Commission.
They maintain that the Constitution gives the Commission authority over key human resource functions, including recruitment, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary matters within the police service.
According to the petition, allowing the Inspector General to control payroll could weaken accountability and transparency in the management of police affairs.
Dispute comes ahead of police recruitment
The case was filed on August 11, 2025, and was certified as urgent due to the government’s plan to recruit 10,000 new police officers.
The petitioners argue that allowing the recruitment process to continue before the payroll dispute is resolved could affect the outcome of the case.
They claim that if new officers are added to a payroll system under disputed authority, reversing the process later could become difficult.
Payroll control linked to police management
The activists argue that payroll is not only about payment of salaries but also influences wider human resource decisions.
They state that promotions, transfers, suspensions, and disciplinary actions are reflected through payroll systems, making control over payroll a significant administrative power.
The petitioners warn that placing payroll authority under the Inspector General could interfere with the role of the Commission and affect public confidence in police oversight.
Respondents yet to respond to petition
The respondents in the case include the Inspector General of Police, the National Police Service, and the Attorney General.
The National Police Service Commission and the Law Society of Kenya have been listed as interested parties.
Court documents indicate that although the parties were served with the petition on August 14, 2025, no responses had been filed at the time of the hearing.
The petitioners have asked the court to issue temporary orders stopping the recruitment exercise until the case is determined.
Lawyer argues case concerns constitutional oversight
Lawyer Danstan Omari, representing the petitioners, told the court that the matter concerns constitutional checks and balances within the police service.
He argued that the dispute goes beyond officers’ welfare and touches on the principle of civilian oversight that informed the creation of the National Police Service Commission.
The petitioners maintain that payroll control affects how police resources are managed and how decisions on officers’ careers are implemented.
Court decision could shape police governance
The High Court’s decision could influence how police recruitment, promotions, and disciplinary procedures are handled in the future.
The petitioners have asked the court to hear the matter during the court recess, arguing that delays could lead to irreversible consequences if the recruitment process proceeds before the dispute is resolved.
