Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Eliud Kipkoech Lagat refuted claims that he resigned from office or acted outside the law in temporarily stepping aside
Lagat dismissed the allegations as speculative, misleading, and without legal foundation.
In a replying affidavit filed at the High Court, Lagat responded to a petition by Eliud Karanja Matindi that challenges the legality of his temporary exit and the subsequent designation of a replacement.
Lagat contended that his decision to take administrative leave on June 16, was lawful and grounded in principles of public accountability.
According to Lagat, the leave followed heightened public scrutiny and ongoing investigations into the death of Albert Omondi Ojwang.
“The application for leave was voluntary and made in good faith,” he stated.
“It did not amount to resignation or abandonment of office under the Constitution or any written law.”
Lagat insisted that the leave was procedural and did not trigger a vacancy in the office.
“No disciplinary process has been initiated against me by the National Police Service Commission or any competent body,” he said.
He further dismissed the notion that he appointed his own successor, clarifying that a public statement he issued was merely to inform the public of his temporary absence and clarify continuity in command.
“It was not an appointment letter and did not usurp the constitutional role of the Police Service Commission,” he said.
Lagat maintained that Patrick Tito assumed an acting role in accordance with the National Police Service Standing Orders, which provide for internal delegation in the absence of a superior officer.
He argues that granting the orders sought in the petition would undermine the operations of the Police Service and hinder effective law enforcement.
“There is no evidence of any constitutional violation or unlawful conduct on my part or on the part of the 2nd Interested Party,” he stated.
Lagat also argued that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any specific violation of rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 47, or 50 of the Constitution
He further accuses the petitioner of attempting to convert what he termed an “employment grievance” into a constitutional petition.
Lagat urged the court to strike out the petition and dismiss it with costs, saying the case lacked merit and was driven by populist rather than legal goals.
“The orders sought by the Petitioner are premature, legally unfounded, disruptive to the operations of the Service, and aimed at scoring populist rather than legal goals,” read the court documents.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
