The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has moved to the Supreme Court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling that affirmed the Inspector General of Police’s authority to recruit uniformed police officers, escalating a constitutional dispute over who controls recruitment within the National Police Service.
In a notice of appeal filed through lawyer Duncan Okatch, LSK said it was dissatisfied with the appellate court’s judgment delivered in Nairobi on October 16, 2026, and intends to challenge the entire decision before the country’s highest court.
The dispute centres on the division of responsibilities between the Inspector General of Police, Douglas Kanja, and the National Police Service Commission (NPSC), particularly over the recruitment and management of uniformed officers.
The Supreme Court challenge could have far-reaching implications for police recruitment, institutional accountability and the interpretation of the Constitution’s provisions governing the National Police Service.
Court of Appeal ruling that triggered the dispute
The latest development follows a judgment by a three-judge Court of Appeal bench comprising Justices Patrick Kiage, Jamila Mohammed and Jessie Lesiit, which dismissed appeals by LSK and the NPSC against an earlier decision barring the commission from recruiting uniformed police officers.
The judges upheld a ruling delivered on October 30, 2025, by Employment and Labour Relations Court Judge Hellen Wasilwa, who declared the commission’s 2025 recruitment regulations unconstitutional and restrained it from recruiting, training, employing, assigning, promoting, suspending or dismissing members of the National Police Service.
The appellate court held that the Constitution distinguishes between uniformed police officers and civilian employees serving within the police service, assigning different responsibilities to the Inspector General and the commission.
In its interpretation, the court found that the NPSC’s recruitment and appointment mandate under Article 246(3) applies to civilian personnel working within the service, rather than sworn police officers.
The judges relied on Article 245, which protects the Inspector General’s independent command of the National Police Service and limits external directions on specified operational and personnel matters.
They rejected arguments that restricting the commission’s role would undermine accountability or revive historical abuses associated with police recruitment and management. Instead, the bench maintained that the Inspector General must exercise his authority within the limits imposed by the Constitution, including its requirements on human rights and the rule of law.
The ruling left the earlier orders against the commission in force, prompting LSK to pursue a further appeal.
How the recruitment dispute began
The legal battle began in September 2025, when the NPSC advertised vacancies for police constables and published the National Police Service Commission (Recruitment and Appointment) Regulations, 2025.
The planned recruitment exercise was intended to bring 10,000 new constables into the service.
However, former Kilome MP John Harun Mwau challenged the commission’s actions in court, arguing that the Constitution did not authorise the NPSC to recruit members of a national security organ.
His position was that the recruitment and training of sworn police officers should fall under the National Police Service itself, operating under the independent command of the Inspector General.
The challenge resulted in the October 2025 ruling that invalidated the commission’s recruitment regulations and stopped the exercise.
Both the NPSC and LSK subsequently appealed, arguing that the commission’s constitutional mandate extended to the recruitment and appointment of uniformed officers.
They also questioned aspects of the lower court’s jurisdiction and warned that limiting the commission’s authority could undermine fair employment practices and weaken oversight of police personnel management.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments in its October 16, 2026 judgment, prompting the latest move to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional question at the centre of the case
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
Article 245 establishes the office of the Inspector General and protects the independence of the National Police Service under that office. It also restricts directions from other authorities on specified matters relating to police operations and personnel.
Article 246 establishes the National Police Service Commission and sets out its functions, including responsibilities relating to recruitment, appointment and the management of personnel within the service.
The disagreement is over how these provisions should be read together, particularly whether the commission’s personnel-management mandate includes the recruitment of sworn officers or whether those responsibilities fall exclusively under the Inspector General’s command.
The Court of Appeal adopted the latter interpretation for uniformed officers, while maintaining that the commission retains responsibilities over civilian employees in the police service.
LSK’s move to the Supreme Court seeks to reopen that constitutional question. The eventual determination could clarify the respective powers of the two institutions and establish a binding interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions.
Implications for police recruitment and accountability
The case has implications beyond the two institutions involved in the litigation.
The recruitment of police officers determines how new personnel enter a service entrusted with protecting the public, enforcing the law and maintaining national security. The process also raises questions about transparency, fairness, professional standards and safeguards against political interference.
The NPSC was established under the Constitution as part of Kenya’s broader police reforms, with responsibilities intended to support professional human-resource management and accountability within the service.
The Inspector General, meanwhile, exercises independent command over the National Police Service, a safeguard designed to protect policing from improper external direction.
The dispute highlights the challenge of reconciling these constitutional arrangements without weakening either operational independence or institutional oversight.
For prospective police recruits, the legal uncertainty has practical significance because the original exercise involving 10,000 constables was halted following the court challenge. The Supreme Court proceedings could influence how future recruitment exercises are organised, depending on the final orders issued.
However, LSK’s notice of appeal does not itself overturn the Court of Appeal judgment. The existing ruling remains the operative judicial position unless it is altered by a competent court.
LSK’s notice signals its intention to challenge the entire Court of Appeal judgment, but the Supreme Court process will determine the next stage of the dispute.
The notice of appeal, as reported, does not set out the full grounds on which LSK intends to challenge the decision or specify all the orders it will seek from the Supreme Court.
The court will therefore be expected to consider the issues properly placed before it under the applicable appellate procedures before determining whether and how the judgment should be reconsidered.
Until then, the disagreement over recruitment authority remains unresolved at the highest judicial level.
The case is also significant because the NPSC has separately indicated its intention to challenge the same Court of Appeal judgment before the Supreme Court, meaning both institutions on the commission’s side of the original dispute are seeking further judicial intervention.
LSK’s decision to move to the Supreme Court marks another chapter in Kenya’s continuing debate over the constitutional management of the National Police Service.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Inspector General’s authority over the recruitment of uniformed officers, drawing a distinction between sworn police personnel and civilian employees. LSK now wants the Supreme Court to reconsider that interpretation.
The outcome will be important not only for the NPSC and the Inspector General but also for the future organisation of police recruitment, the protection of institutional independence and the accountability mechanisms governing Kenya’s security agencies.
For now, the legal battle continues, with the Supreme Court potentially holding the final word on one of the most consequential questions surrounding police recruitment in Kenya.
