The Siaya County Government has rejected an advisory opinion issued by the Commission on Administrative Justice concerning appointments and administrative decisions within the county.
In a letter to CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo, Governor James Orengo accused the commission, commonly known as the Office of the Ombudsman, of publishing findings against the county without giving it a fair chance to respond.
Orengo said the county was never formally given the advisory opinion before it was released and circulated publicly. He said the county was equally not shown the complaints, evidence or statements used by the commission to reach its findings.
The governor said it was troubling for an institution created to protect administrative justice to make adverse findings against a public body before hearing its side.
According to the county, the manner in which the opinion was prepared and released may have breached Article 47 of the Constitution, which protects the right to lawful and fair administrative action.
The county cited Article 50(1), which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
Orengo said those protections apply to every institution, including constitutional commissions.
“The Commission must uphold the very principles of administrative justice that it exists to protect,” the county said in the letter.
The county has questioned whether CAJ carried out an independent investigation after noting similarities between parts of the original complaint and the wording used in the commission’s findings.
The complaint is said to have come from the Siaya County Assembly, which has had several disputes with the county executive.
Siaya wants CAJ to explain what evidence it obtained directly from the county executive before reaching its decision.
“An independent constitutional commission must independently establish facts, hear all sides and apply the law impartially,” the letter states.
The county warned that CAJ should not become a channel through which accusations made by one political side are turned into findings against another without proper checks.
It rejected claims that appointments and administrative decisions made by the county executive were unlawful, saying political disagreement alone does not make an official decision illegal.
Siaya has accused CAJ of going beyond its mandate if the advisory opinion was meant to carry the force of a binding decision.
The county is now demanding a complete copy of the opinion, the original complaint, supporting documents and all evidence used by the commission.
It wants records showing when it was contacted, what questions it was asked and what chance it was given to respond before the findings were released.
The county has asked CAJ to state the legal basis it used to make findings that Siaya says went beyond an advisory role.
Orengo has warned that the county may move to court over the investigation, publication of the opinion and any action taken from its findings.
The county maintains that it will not accept findings reached through a process in which it was not heard.
CAJ is yet to publicly answer the issues raised in Orengo’s letter.
