Acting Inspector General of the National Police Service (NPS), Gilbert Masengeli, has rejected allegations from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) suggesting that the recent withdrawal of security for High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi was an act of intimidation following a court ruling against the police chief.
In a press statement issued on September 16, 2024, Masengeli responded to concerns raised by the judiciary, which claimed that the removal of the judge’s security was a retaliatory move designed to send “a chilling message” to judicial officers. These concerns were amplified after Justice Mugambi held Masengeli in contempt of court for failing to appear as ordered. The JSC, led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, had condemned the move, asserting that it represented a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary.
Masengeli refuted these claims, emphasizing the constitutional independence of the National Police Service and the discretionary power vested in the Inspector General (IG) to assign or withdraw security personnel based on operational needs. “The responsibility for the independent command of the National Police Service is vested in the Inspector General, and no person may give a direction to the IG with respect to the employment, assignment, or dismissal of any member of the service,” the statement read, referencing Article 245 (4)(c) of the Kenyan Constitution.
Masengeli sought to clarify that Judge Mugambi’s security detail, which was composed of two general duty officers, was reassigned to attend a VIP security training course. He emphasized that the removal was purely an administrative decision and had no relation to the judge’s recent rulings. “Suitable arrangements were made to ensure that Hon. Mugambi’s security was always assured,” Masengeli assured.
In an effort to counter accusations of discrimination or selective enforcement, the acting IG highlighted that personal security is not an automatic entitlement for judges under Kenyan law. “Other than the President, the Deputy President, and the Retired President, no other Kenyan is entitled by law to be provided with personal security detail,” the statement continued. He noted that security for officials, including those in the judiciary, is determined by risk assessments and policies established by the NPS, with final discretion resting solely with the IG.
Masengeli also expressed confusion over the judiciary’s insistence that he personally attend the contempt proceedings. He explained that he had delegated Deputy Inspector General Kenya Police Service to represent him, given the pressing nature of his duties. “The responsibilities of the IG to secure the nation require the officeholder to attend operational meetings virtually the entire day at different locations,” he said, adding that the court’s demand for his personal appearance seemed unnecessary given the senior officer sent in his place.
Masengeli reaffirmed the NPS’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the safety of all citizens, including members of the judiciary. He further pledged to maintain the spirit of multi-agency collaboration under the National Council on Administration of Justice, a forum aimed at fostering cooperation among law enforcement, the judiciary, and other arms of government.
