Wamuzi News Ke
In a dramatic ruling early this morning, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) has declared the nationwide police recruitment exercise null and void, finding that the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) lacks the constitutional authority to hire or dismiss officers of the National Police Service (NPS).
The decision, issued by Judge Hellen Wasilwa on Thursday, 30 October 2025, strikes at the heart of one of Kenya’s most entrenched institutional controversies: who holds the power over police recruitment, appointments and dismissals.
A Court Blow to NPSC’s Recruitment Drive
The court found that the recruitment, training and assignment of police officers is the sole prerogative of the National Police Service, acting under the command of the Inspector‑General of Police (IG), and that NPSC’s advertised drive—said to recruit 10,000 police officers—was unconstitutional.
Key excerpts of the ruling include:
- “The recruitment by the national security organs under Article 232 of the Constitution can only be done by the national security organ itself and not by any other entity outside it.”
- A permanent injunction was issued restraining the Commission from proceeding with the advertised recruitment or any related activities (including the advertisement published in the Daily Nation).
- Judge Wasilwa emphasised that the Commission’s mandate covers administrative oversight and policy implementation—but not operational roles such as recruitment or dismissals of police officers.
Why It Matters — Institutional and Security Implications
This is not a mere technicality. The ruling strikes at institutional authority and raises serious questions about governance, accountability and the proper chain of command within Kenya’s security architecture.
First, the decision invalidates a major recruitment drive which had mobilised thousands across the country and was promoted as a solution to police-staffing shortages. With the recruitment now declared null, large numbers of applicants face uncertainty, training schedules may be disrupted, and planned deployments now hang in the balance.
Second, it clarifies the division of powers: the IG and the NPS hold the operational recruitment powers, while the NPSC is limited to oversight functions. This clear demarcation could reshape future policy and reform proposals. For public-sector watchers, the ruling resets precedent about who legally oversees internal security staffing in Kenya.
Third, the decision opens the door for legal and administrative fallout. Individuals recruited under the now-invalid drive may challenge their status. The NPS and NPSC may find themselves in protracted litigation as they navigate the consequences. Additionally, questions will arise about existing appointments and dismissals – did NPSC overreach in past actions and, if so, what legal redress exists?
What Happens Next: Immediate and Long-Term Actions
In the immediate term:
- The recruitment advertisement by NPSC is formally void; the process must stop.
- Both NPSC and NPS will need to reassess the legality of any prior recruitment or dismissal actions taken under the disputed scheme.
- Applicants, training colleges and administrative units face confusion: how many recruits will be retained, how many must return, and how will the pipeline proceed?
For the long term:
- Legislative or policy reform may be required to clarify the roles of NPSC vs. NPS in recruitment and human-resource management within the police.
- The oversight functions of NPSC may be sharpened—ensuring merit, fairness and transparency without operational interference.
- The government may need to redesign the recruitment architecture to align with the Constitution’s Article 232, which emphasises merit and public-service values.
- Public confidence in policing, recruitment integrity and institutional accountability may rely heavily on how both bodies respond to this setback.
