Kambi: Court has no jurisdiction to fire me

By Lucianne Limo

Nairobi, Kenya: Labour Cabinet Secretary Samuel Kazungu Kambi has said only the President and not the High Court can remove him from office.

Kambi told the court that it has no jurisdiction to try and determine allegations made against him by an activist that he makes erratic decisions, failed to articulate issues in the ministry and that he is unsuitable to hold the position of a Secretary Cabinet.

“An attempt by a court to try or determine allegations that he is incompetent, not qualified academically or unsuitable to be a CS is unconstitutional and beyond the jurisdiction of the court,” he said in response to a suit filed against him.

Kambi argued that the assessment of a person’s suitability to be appointed as CS, to hold or to be dismissed is under the doctrine of separation of powers reserved to the president.

 Charles Omanga has moved to court challenging the academic credentials of Kambi.

Through advocate Aduda Samuel, the petitioner, said that allowing Kambi to continue carrying out functions as cabinet secretary, may jeopardize good governance and constitutional disciplines of suitability and competence.

The petitioner wants Kambi be compelled by court to disclose his true and genuine academic qualifications.

Kambi however told the court that it has no jurisdiction to review executive decision and policies of the cabinet unless it is shown the decisions are unlawful and violate the activist rights.

“The petitioner has not pleaded how the alleged yet unspecified erratic decision attributed to him has violated the right to good governance,” Kambi stated.

He further argued that a university degree is not a prequalification for appointment to the Cabinet Secretary under article 152 of the constitution.

 “A misconception that a CS is an elected state officer for purpose of section 13(2) of the leadership and integrity act cap 182. A misconception that CS is required to submit a self-declaration form required of elected state officer as under section13 (2) of cap 182.”

He pointed out that no information was required of him under section 13(2) of cap 182 when he was appointed state officer under article 152 as opposed to elected state officers as envisaged in section 13(2) of Cap 182.