New Court Battle Over Conflict-of-Interest Law

A major court case has been filed in Kenya challenging part of the new Conflict of Interest Act. The case questions whether Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Committee Members should be allowed to take part in politics while still holding public office.

The Law in Question

The Conflict-of-Interest Act, which became law in August 2025, is meant to guide how public officers handle situations where personal interests might interfere with their official duties. However, Section 25 of the Act has raised serious concerns.

According to the petition, this section allows Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Members to engage in political activities. In simple terms, it gives them room to support or campaign for political parties and candidates while still in office.

The petitioners argue that this permission goes against the Constitution, which requires state officers to remain neutral and serve everyone equally.

The People Who Went to Court

The case has been filed by lawyer Mwaura Kabata and Member of Parliament Babu Owino. They are suing the Attorney General, more than a dozen Cabinet Secretaries, and the Inspector General of Police. They also listed the Council of Governors, Katiba Institute, and the Law Society of Kenya as interested parties.

What the Petitioners Are Arguing

The two petitioners believe that Section 25 is unconstitutional because it creates double standards in government. It allows some leaders to mix politics with public service while others are forbidden from doing so.

They point out that under the Leadership and Integrity Act, public officers must not take part in political activities that compromise their neutrality. By giving Cabinet Secretaries and County Executives a free pass, Parliament has, in their view, violated the spirit of fairness and integrity found in the Constitution.

The petitioners also say this new section encourages misuse of office, because powerful officials can now use state resources and government events to advance political interests.

Evidence of Political Conduct

To support their case, the petitioners attached videos and online posts showing several Cabinet Secretaries at political rallies or making remarks that sound like campaign statements.

For example, one clip shows a Cabinet Secretary telling teachers in Kakamega that it is hard to defeat a sitting president. Another shows the Treasury Cabinet Secretary urging Migori residents to back the president for a second term. There are also videos of other ministers in rallies, funerals, and interviews making political statements or chanting slogans.

One of the most controversial claims involves the Inspector General of Police, who is said to have attended a rally in Kieni where he made a speech that sounded political. The petitioners also attached a press statement from the Law Society of Kenya that had criticized the Inspector General’s appearance at that event.

Why They Rushed to Court

The case was filed under a certificate of urgency because of upcoming by-elections scheduled for late November 2025. The petitioners say that without quick court action, Cabinet Secretaries and other officials might openly campaign using their offices and influence. They argue that this could make elections unfair and compromise public trust in government.

What They Want the Court to Do

They want the High Court to suspend Section 25 of the Act and later declare it null and void. They also want temporary orders stopping Cabinet Secretaries, County Executive Members, and the Inspector General from taking part in any political activity or expressing support for political parties.

If the court agrees, these leaders would be required to keep off all political rallies, campaigns, and public endorsements until the case is decided.

The Constitutional Questions

At the heart of the case is the question of whether Parliament can pass a law that gives political freedom to some public officers but denies it to others.

The Constitution says public officers must exercise integrity, impartiality, and fairness. It also says they should not put personal or political interests above public duty.

The petitioners believe Section 25 goes directly against Articles 73, 75, and 232 of the Constitution, which promote integrity and neutrality in public service. They also rely on Article 27, which guarantees equality before the law.

What the Government Might Argue

The government is expected to argue that Cabinet Secretaries are political appointees who are part of the executive branch, not career public servants. It might say that because they are chosen by the President, they naturally support the government’s political agenda and that this does not necessarily break the Constitution.

The Attorney General may also argue that the law was passed by Parliament through a legal process and that the court should not interfere with legislative decisions unless there is clear proof of a constitutional breach.

The Concerns About Evidence

Although the petitioners have attached many videos and social media clips, their authenticity could be questioned. The government could claim the clips were edited, lack full context, or do not prove any real political activity.

The petitioners included a certificate of accuracy signed by a person who said they downloaded the clips from social media, but the court may still require original versions, transcripts, and independent witnesses to confirm what happened.

Why This Case Matters

This case goes beyond just one law. It touches on the future of political accountability in Kenya. If the court rules in favor of the petitioners, it will mean that all public officers, including Cabinet Secretaries, must remain politically neutral. That could change how the government operates and how officials behave in public.

But if the court supports the government, it will mean that Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Members can openly take part in political campaigns without breaking the law. That outcome could reshape Kenya’s political scene by allowing top government officials to mix public duties with politics.

The Bigger Picture

This dispute is not only about legality but also about ethics and fairness. Many Kenyans feel that public servants should serve everyone equally, not just those who belong to a certain political party. Others believe that because Cabinet Secretaries serve under the President, they should be allowed to promote government policies, which sometimes means political involvement.

The court will now have to decide where to draw the line between political loyalty and public duty.

What Happens Next

The High Court will first decide whether to hear the case urgently and whether to stop the officials from engaging in political activity as requested. After that, it will hold full hearings to decide if Section 25 of the Conflict-of-Interest Act should be suspended or completely struck down.

Whatever the decision, the ruling will be a major one. It will either strengthen the wall separating politics from public service or officially allow senior officials to mix the two.