High Court quashes sacking of AP commandant Eusebia Laibuta

NAIROBI, KENYA: The High Court has quashed a decision by the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) vetting panel to sack the Administration Police Senior Staff College Commandant Eusebia Laibuta.

High court judge George Odunga ruled that the participation of the Inspector General David Kimaiyo, his two deputies Samuel Arachi (Administration Police) and Grace Kaindi (National Police) in delivering the verdict against Laibuta when they did not take part in his initial vetting interview was unlawful, unfair and unprocedural.

During his vetting in January, Laibuta had cautioned NPSC against sacking officers saying that could force them to commit suicide out of desperation.

The judge also held that failure by the vetting panel to supply the Petitioner with complaints prior to the vetting was unfair and against the rules of natural justice.

"The vetting process in respect of the applicant did not meet the constitutional and administrative threshold of fairness as it failed to comply with provisions of the constitution," said Odunga.

"I therefore quashed the decision of the National Police Service Commission of removing the petitioner from the Administration Police Service. I also directed that the vetting of the petitioner to be conducted de novo (afresh) if the commission feels that there were strong grounds to warrant a vetting," said the judge.

In his submissions through lawyer Guandaru Thuita, Laibuta had argued that stiff competition for senior positions and favourism in the NPSC had been attributed to the double standards employed in the vetting exercise.

The high court heard that the NPSC vetting panel recalled some officers whom they wished to retain in their respective position and gave them an opportunity to clarify contentious issue then cleared them of any impropriety.

"Some of the officers who were retained in the service were given a second chance to clarify and give additional information to the vetting panel. This was not accorded to some of the officers sacked. This is a clear case of double standard and discrimination," submitted Thuita.

The lawyer argued that the vetting panel recalled several senior police officers to clarify on issues whereas Laibuta was not given such an opportunity and added that the action by the panel was discriminative and amounted to application of double standards.

Thuita added that the vetting process in respect of Laibuta did not meet the constitutional and administrative threshold of fairness and appealed to the court to quash the decision by the panel to relieve him of his duties.

Thuita told the court that instead of the vetting panel dwelling on the performance of the officers who had served the administration police for over 30 years it had instead concentrated on the income of the individuals being vetted which had infringed on the privacy of the officers.

Laibuta also argued that the board as constituted was illegal, irregular and abnormal as it did not meet the legal requirements envisaged in the constitution as it was conducting the vetting exercise without quorum following the death of one of the members.

However, the NPSC argued that the officer had been given an opportunity to appear before the board and have the decision reached reviewed but he failed.

"The officer was given an opportunity to appear before the panel to have the decision reviewed but he declined to do so but instead opted to file a suit in court," NPSC submitted through its lawyer.