A legal storm has broken over the head of Felix Koskei, the country's Head of Public Service and Chief of Staff, after three registered voters marched into the High Court in Kapsabet on Monday and asked a judge to do something rarely attempted against a sitting official of his rank: declare him unfit to hold public office altogether.
The petitioners, Shadrack Kimeli, Elisha Kiprop and Stephen Sirngewo, present themselves to the court as voters drawn from six constituencies across Nandi County, namely Aldai, Tindiret, Nandi Hills, Emgwen, Chesumei and Mosop, and their case rests on a single, sharp edged accusation that Koskei has stepped beyond the boundaries of his office by engaging in political campaigns ahead of the 2027 General Election.
Rather than confining himself to the neutral machinery of public administration, the petitioners contend, Koskei has been attempting to influence the choice of leaders in Nandi County, conduct they argue runs contrary to the code of conduct governing public officers.
Their sworn affidavits paint a picture of an official who, in their telling, has traded the impartial role of a civil servant for the campaign trail, conduct they argue amounts to a breach of public trust because he has been campaigning for prospective candidates seeking elective office.
They contend that such conduct risks compromising the transparency and integrity of the 2027 General Election before a single ballot has been cast.
"The petitioners pray for a declaration declaring that the first respondent through his utterances violated the principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya to the extent that the utterances of the first respondent meant that they shall not put into consideration the democracy and participation of the people of Nandi County in choosing their elected leaders," the court filings state.
To support their case, the petitioners rely heavily on remarks they attribute to Koskei during public rallies conducted in the Nandi language before being translated and presented to the court.
"We have the responsibility of taking care of Nandi. We need leadership that is aware that Nandi County is still lagging behind in terms of development. Even Melly has shown interest in the Nandi gubernatorial seat. I am also there; even the war waged against me is because I am right behind you (Melly). They know that I am right behind fellow constituent," the petitioners quote Koskei as saying in their court filings.
The petitioners argue that the remarks amount to an open endorsement of Tindiret MP Julius Melly's gubernatorial ambitions while serving as Head of Public Service, a position they maintain requires strict political neutrality.
Their lawyer, Sammy Mathai Maina, argues that Koskei is unfit to continue serving as Head of Public Service because his participation in political campaigns raises integrity questions and denies voters their constitutional right to freely choose leaders of their choice without interference from a holder of public office.
The petitioners further contend that Koskei repeatedly suggested during public rallies that he and others would intervene should voters elect leaders they did not approve of.
"We will not allow to be led by a demagogue (Soriin in the Nandi dialect) and anyone who wants to destroy this land. If you fail to choose wisely, we shall come and interfere in the future. We will not allow, we will fix it," the petitioners told the court, attributing the remarks to Koskei during a speech in Chepkunyuk Ward in Nandi Hills Constituency.
"The utterance by the Head of Public Service violated the rights of the people of Nandi County in making free political choices by participating in campaigns for a political party and choosing a leader of their choice," the petitioners state in their application.
Taken as a whole, the petition asks the High Court not only to declare that Koskei violated the principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution but also to relieve him of his duties as Head of Public Service and bar him from engaging in political activities for as long as he continues serving as Head of Public Service and Chief of Staff.
Whether the High Court agrees that the petitioners have demonstrated constitutional violations warranting such far reaching orders now rests with the court in Kapsabet.
