CAJ Meets Orengo's Wrath: Siaya Governor Rejects Purported Findings, Questions Independence of Ombudsman

Siaya County rejects Ombudsman opinion and accuses CAJ of denying it a fair hearing

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.

The County Government of Siaya has launched a blistering attack on the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), also known as the Office of the Ombudsman, rejecting what it describes as a procedurally flawed and constitutionally questionable Advisory Opinion concerning appointments and administrative arrangements within the county.

In a strongly worded letter addressed to CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo, Governor James Orengo has accused the commission of violating the very principles of administrative justice it exists to protect, including the right to a fair hearing under Article 47 of the Constitution and the right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 50(1).

"A Constitutional Commission Cannot Violate the Constitution" At the outset, the County Government has placed on record that, despite the public release and circulation of the purported Advisory Opinion, it was neither formally furnished with the opinion nor afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, evidence, and representations upon which the adverse conclusions appear to have been based.

"It is deeply troubling that a constitutional commission established to safeguard administrative justice would publicly issue adverse findings against a public institution before according that institution the basic right to be heard," the letter states, adding that this is not a mere procedural technicality but raises serious questions concerning the legality, fairness, and constitutional validity of the process.

The County Government has further noted that Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution guarantee every person the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair, as well as the right to a fair hearing, and that these constitutional standards apply to all institutions, including the Commission itself.

"The Commission must uphold the very principles of administrative justice that it exists to protect," the letter states.

"Independence, impartiality, due process, and respect for constitutional boundaries cannot be demanded from others while being disregarded by the institution itself."

Was the Outcome Predetermined? The County Government has raised serious questions over what it describes as a striking similarity in language and characterisation between aspects of the original complaint, which appears to have originated from the County Assembly of Siaya, and the subsequent CAJ findings.

"Was this an independent investigation, or an adoption of somebody else's narrative?" the County demands, pointing to the apparent reliance on allegations originating from a political institution without demonstrable and meaningful engagement with the County Executive.

"An independent constitutional commission must independently establish facts, hear all sides, and apply the law impartially," the letter states.

"It must not become an instrument through which allegations by one political actor are amplified and converted into adverse findings against another."

The fundamental question remains: What evidence did the Commission independently obtain from the County Executive before reaching its conclusions?

The County Government has rejected, in the strongest terms, what it describes as an attempt to manufacture an institutional crisis around routine questions of administration and appointments.

"Administrative decisions lawfully made within the constitutional mandate of the County Executive cannot simply be characterised as unlawful merely because they are politically contested," the letter states.

CAJ Accused of Acting Beyond Its Mandate To the extent that the purported Advisory Opinion purports to make binding or determinative findings, the County Government considers the Commission to have acted ultra vires its constitutional and statutory mandate.

The County has demanded that the Commission formally furnish it with the complete Advisory Opinion, including all findings and recommendations; the complaint or petition together with all supporting documentation; all evidence and material relied upon in reaching the findings.

The record of notices and opportunities allegedly afforded to the County Government to respond; and the legal and jurisdictional basis upon which the Commission proceeded to make determinations extending beyond its advisory mandate.

The County Government has reserved its right to pursue all appropriate legal remedies in respect of the process, findings, publication, and any consequences arising from the purported Advisory Opinion.

"Independence, impartiality, due process and respect for constitutional boundaries cannot be demanded from others while being disregarded by the institution itself," the letter concludes.

Investigation or a Scripted Outcome? Where an investigative body appears to mirror the language of a complainant without first hearing the institution being accused, legitimate questions of independence and objectivity arise.

"An investigator must investigate, not merely inherit accusations," the County Government argues, as it challenges the Commission to demonstrate that its findings were based on independent evidence rather than the politically motivated allegations of its critics.

The Commission on Administrative Justice now faces a critical test of its credibility and independence.

Its response to the County Government's demands and its handling of the Siaya case will determine whether it is seen as a defender of administrative justice or an instrument of political vendetta.

The County Government has made it clear that it will not accept a process that violates the very principles the Commission exists to protect, and it is prepared to pursue all legal remedies to protect its constitutional rights and the integrity of its administrative decisions.