Omtatah questions legality of head of public service post

Activist Okiya Omtatah, who has filed a case in court questioning the legality of the head of public service post. FILE PHOTO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The activist wants the court to determine the legality of a circular issued by Mr Joseph Kinyua.
  • He also questions the legality of the position of head of public service.

Activist Okiya Omtatah has moved to court seeking to determine the legality of a circular issued by Head of Public Service Joseph Kinyua, which exempts CEOs of state corporations from the mandatory retirement age of 60 years.

Mr Omtatah also wants the Employment and Labour Relations court to determine the designation of Mr Kinyua as the Head of the Public Service, a post he claims should not exist.

LAW

In a circular dated February 27, titled ‘Terms of service for state corporations chief executive officers’, Mr Kinyua exempted the CEOs from the mandatory retirement age of 60 years and from the six-year term limit.

The circular was addressed to all Cabinet secretaries, the Attorney-General and all principal secretaries

But according to Mr Omtatah, the office of the head of public service does not exist in law and only existed in the old Constitution.

He said Mr Kinyua, who is also the State House Chief of Staff, was handpicked by President Uhuru Kenyatta to serve on his private staff and was never vetted by Parliament.

POWERS

In the circumstances, therefore, he cannot superintend the public service, outside the President’s private staff, the activist said.

“He has no powers over principal secretaries or authorised officers, or in any way whatsoever, to take over, control, or to direct the functions and operations of the Public Service Commission,” he said.

Mr Omtatah said Mr Kinyua’s designation as head of public service is extremely irregular as it undermines the mandate and authority of the PSC.

In the case to be heard on Monday, Mr Omtatah accuses Mr Kinyua of usurping the powers and mandate of the PSC.

“The petitioner is aggrieved that the 1st respondent has given himself powers and a mandate unknown in law as the occupant of the non-existent office of the Head of the Public Service, and has issued a statutory instrument purporting to amend existing subsidiary legislations on the mandatory retirement age,” he said.