High Court Extends Stay on DPP Removal Regulations Amidst Contempt Allegations
The Kenyan High Court has issued an extension of existing orders that effectively halt the development of regulations concerning the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This significant legal development arises from a fresh legal battle where senior officials of the Public Service Commission (PSC) are accused of defying court directives by proceeding with a controversial validation forum. The court has, in turn, established stringent timelines for responses, underscoring concerns over judicial authority and the enforcement of court rulings.
The initial order, issued on March 12, 2026, by Justice Joe M. Omido, placed a moratorium on the formulation, validation, and adoption of the Draft Public Service Commission (Removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Regulations, 2026. This prohibition explicitly included any stakeholder engagement or validation forums deemed integral to the regulatory process.
However, the process was allegedly pushed forward with the convening of an online validation forum on March 23, 2026. This action has led to a new application before the Milimani High Court, seeking to hold specific senior officials of the Public Service Commission accountable for contempt of court. The petitioner, Jane Onyango, contends that this move constitutes a deliberate and wilful disregard of a lawful court order, thereby undermining the fundamental authority and dignity of the judiciary.
The court’s latest directives mandate that the contempt application and supporting documents be formally served upon all named respondents and individuals within a three-day timeframe. Following service, the respondents are afforded seven days to submit their responses. The applicant, in turn, has the option to file a further affidavit within seven days of receiving these responses. The matter has been scheduled for a mention on April 9, 2026, for further judicial direction. Crucially, the court reiterated that the orders issued on March 12, 2026, remain in full force and effect.
The Accusations of Defiance
Court documents reveal that the petitioner’s lawyer, Felix Onyango, had diligently served the initial court orders, the petition, and accompanying documentation on March 16, 2026. This service was conducted both physically and via electronic mail, with a subsequent affidavit of service filed to confirm compliance.
Despite this documented compliance, the petitioner asserts that the Public Service Commission proceeded with the validation forum. This forum is described as a critical step in advancing the disputed regulations, making its continuation in the face of a court-ordered stay a significant point of contention.
Court papers obtained detail the petitioner’s argument: “The said order was duly served upon the respondents on March 16, 2026, both physically and via electronic mail, and an affidavit of service has since been filed. However, in blatant, wilful, and calculated disregard of the authority of this Honourable Court, the respondents proceeded, on March 23, 2026, to convene and conduct an online validation forum in respect of the very process that was expressly stayed by the court.”
Officials Cited for Contempt
The application for contempt of court specifically names several high-ranking officials within the Public Service Commission. These include:
- Commissioners Mary W. Kimonye
- Joan A. Machayo
- Dr. Irene C. Asienga
- Francis Meja (Chairperson)
- Molu Boya
- Mwanamaka Amani Mabruki
- Harun Maalim Hassan
- Dr. Francis Otieno Owino
- Jacqueline Manani
- Paul Famba (Chief Executive Officer)
The Sensitive Nature of the DPP’s Office
The petitioner, through her legal representation, has underscored the paramount importance of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions within Kenya’s governance framework. The DPP occupies a uniquely sensitive position, tasked with making critical decisions that impact a wide spectrum of individuals and entities, including political actors, public officers, private citizens, and state institutions.
The petitioner’s court filings emphasize that the insulation of this office from improper influence is not merely a procedural matter but a “daily operational necessity.” This highlights the potential ramifications of any perceived interference or undue pressure on the DPP’s functions.
Seeking Judicial Intervention
Through her lawyer, Festus Onyango, the petitioner is seeking several key orders from the High Court. These include:
- Compelling Appearance: An order to compel the named officials to appear before the court and provide explanations as to why they should not be cited for contempt and subsequently punished.
- Invalidation of Outcomes: A declaration that any resolutions, reports, or outcomes stemming from the March 23 validation forum be deemed null and void, effectively nullifying any progress made in defiance of the court’s stay order.
- Punishment for Contempt: In the event of a finding of guilt for contempt of court, the petitioner seeks the commitment of the officials to civil jail for a period of up to six months.
- Personal Cost Bearing: The application also requests that the convicted officials be personally liable for the legal costs associated with this case.
The petitioner’s argument centres on the broader implications of continued disregard for judicial orders. She contends that without robust judicial intervention, the persistent flouting of court directives risks eroding the authority of the judiciary, ultimately rendering its pronouncements ineffective and undermining the rule of law. This legal challenge, therefore, extends beyond the specific regulations at hand to address fundamental questions about judicial power and accountability within the Kenyan legal system.
