Petition Filed to Halt Implementation of Conflict of Interest Law Allowing CSs to Engage in Politics

Zilper Ochieng

A petition has been filed at the Milimani Law Courts seeking to suspend the implementation of a section of the newly enacted Conflict of Interest Act No. 11 of 2025, which allows Cabinet Secretaries and County Executive Committee Members to engage in political activities.

Petitioners Mwaura Kabata and Embakasi East MP Babu Owino are challenging Section 25 of the Act, terming it unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a threat to political neutrality within the public service.

In a certificate of urgency, the petitioners are seeking conservatory orders to immediately restrain the Attorney General, Cabinet Secretaries, and other senior State officers from engaging in political campaigns or supporting any political party or candidate pending the hearing and determination of the case.

Kabata and Owino argue that recent political rallies — particularly one held in Kieni, Nyeri County, on April 2, 2025 — exposed increasing political involvement by State officers, including members of the National Police Service.

According to the petition, such actions amount to a conflict between public and personal interests, violating both the Leadership and Integrity Act (2012) and the Constitution.

The petition read that the exemption of Cabinet Secretaries and members of County Executive Committees from restrictions imposed on other State officers is discriminatory and directly conflicts with Article 75 of the Constitution.

The petitioners further argue that the impugned section undermines the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and impartiality required of public servants. They warn that failing to suspend its implementation could result in continued constitutional violations.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that Section 25 of the Conflict of Interest Act is unconstitutional, null, and void, and a permanent injunction restraining all State officers from participating in political campaigns or activities that compromise their neutrality.

The petitioners insist that the matter is of great public importance, urging the court to act urgently to safeguard the rule of law, constitutionalism, and good governance.

Share This Article
Leave a comment