The National Police Service (NPS) has denied allegations that it withdrew the security detail of High Court Justice Lawrence Mugambi after he sentenced Acting Police Inspector General (IG) Gilbert Masengeli to six years imprisonment for contempt of court.

In a statement, Masengeli says the NPS's alleged move, initially claimed by Chief Justice Martha Koome, sparked discussions about police conduct and adherence to the law. Critics said the measure was a retaliatory action against the judge following his ruling.

"The NPS wishes to rebut the allegations raised by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) relating to the assignment of personal security to Judges and to assure the Country that security of all Kenyans, Judges included, remains our utmost priority," Masengeli said.

Further, he defended NPS' independence and operational autonomy, reaffirming that the law enforcement agency operates under constitutional independence.

Similarly, he asserted that no external authority can direct or interfere with the employment, assignment, promotion, suspension, or dismissal of police officers.

Did you read this?

  1. High Court Outlaws Rule Giving CA Power To Censor Kenyan Media
  2. Masengeli Apologises For Contempt Of Court, Vows To Comply Moving Forward
  3. Masengeli Apologizes To Court For Failing To Honor Summons

"Article 245(4)(c) of the Constitution provides for the independent command of the NPS vested in the Inspector General of Police (IG) and no person may direct the IG with respect to the ‘employment, assignment, promotion, suspension or dismissal of any police officer.”

"Other independent offices and arms of Government cite the Constitution to be the basis for their independence. This is the same source of authority for the operational autonomy and independence of the NPS. The NPS totally rejects attempts to intimidate, coerce or otherwise interfere with the operational and functional independence of the Police."

According to Masengeli, while the NPS strives to protect all Kenyans, including judges, providing personal security to every individual is not feasible.