Court of Appeal rejects former police officer’s bid to be reinstated

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by a former National Police Service officer seeking to be reinstated after being sacked from the police service for lacking financial probity and integrity.

In their decision, Justices Hannah Okwengu, Hellen Omondi and Joel Ngugi concurred with the decision of the High Court stating that the judge came to the correct conclusion in finding that the vetting process and the review process were properly undertaken in accordance with the due process provided in law.

Consequently, they stated that the former police officer Roselyne Luvega Mwanje’s constitutional rights were not violated,

“In the circumstances, we reject the appellant’s contention that the vetting proceedings were a nullity and we find no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed with costs,” they ruled.

Mwanje was one of the officers from the former Kenya Police Service after vetting by the National Police Service  Commission.

She had been employed in the service as a police constable on September 4, 1993 and had risen through the ranks to the position of Inspector of Police.

At the time of her vetting, she was the Traffic Base Commander of Kabras Sub-base. She had formerly worked as OCS Mwata Weigh Bridge, OC Crime Mtito-Andei Police Station, and had also worked in Kisumu, Oyugis, Migori and Kisii.

Following her vetting by the Commission, she was found unsuitable to serve due to lack of financial probity and integrity, as a result of which she was removed from the service on December 6, 2016. She appealed the decision of the commission and the appeal was dismissed prompting her to move to the Environment and Labour Relations Court claiming the commission had bleached her fundamental rights on fair administration and fair hearing.

She alleged that the Commission failed to comply with the vetting rules, and relied on matters and information that had not been submitted to it.

She, therefore, urged the court to quash the entire proceedings of the Commission, reinstate her to her position and award damages for unfair removal from service as well as compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights and freedoms.

During the hearing, the judge consolidated the matter with other 19 petitions of similar nature and focused on petitioners’ issues of financial impropriety with regard to salaries and M-Pesa transactions noting that that the petitioner’s complaint was that their rights to fair hearing and fair administrative action were breached.

In regard to Mwanje, the Commission found that the financial transactions in her bank statement were incommensurate with her declared and expected income, and her explanation was not tenable.

The judge had noted that, all petitioners were requested by the Commission to fill in Wealth Declaration Forms and produce their bank and Mpesa statements, Tax Clearance Certificates and Copies of Education and Professional Certificates

He indicated that “they were not ambushed by the Commission but had ample opportunity to prepare for the vetting and to make written and oral representations at the vetting.”

The judge was satisfied by the record of the hearings, which showed that each of the petitioners provided answers to all the questions that they were asked during the vetting and none of them requested for more time or adjournment to respond to the questions.

The Judge concluded that all the petitioners failed the integrity test and were lawfully and fairly removed from service by the Commission following their vetting.

In their decision, the appellate judges stated that he appellant appeared before the Commission for vetting in accordance with Section 7 of the National Police Service Act and that there was initially no specific complaint against her.

They also noted that she was was given prior notice of the date she was required to appear for the vetting,

Further, they noted that “the vetting panel arrived at its decision after establishing that the appellant had substantial frequent mobile money transactions with other officers and civilians, which she could not plausibly explain as the vetting panel found her explanations attributing the mobile money transactions to loans, welfare contributions and personal business, unconvincing.”

In dismissing the appeal, they find that the appellant’s vetting was done in accordance with the vetting regulations, and that the appellant’s rights under Article 50 and Article 47 were not violated as she was given a fair hearing by the vetting panel as provided under the law.