Supreme Court Ruling on National Police Service Salaries
On Friday, June 23, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling regarding the salaries of National Police Service members.
A seven-judge panel denied the appeal of two police officers seeking compensation for discrimination after receiving university degrees.
The two individuals charged the National Police Service Commission with failing to increase their salaries to that of graduate officers.
Supreme Court ruled, “We accordingly dismiss this appeal for lack of merit, but emphasize that police officers who hold degrees from recognized universities or other similar institutions must follow the law and guidelines by submitting their applications for consideration by the authorized body to grant either a promotion or a reward under the horizontal career development scheme.”
In particular, the case proceeded from the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) to the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court decided its fate, thereby determining its final disposition.
At the Supreme Court, the judges reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had reversed the Employment and Labour Relations Court’s ruling that had granted the officers all of the requested orders, including a pay increase to Job Group J, similar to other graduate police officers who share salaries with Inspectors of Police.
The Supreme Court also determined if the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the officers could only have received a pay raise with an express opinion from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), which the Appellate Court noted was a mandatory requirement under the dispute’s circumstances.
ALSO READ: Babu Owino Rebukes Miguna Miguna on DJ Evolve Case
“The Court has the authority to hear the appeal. “From the ELRC to the Supreme Court, the dispute has centered on the interpretation and application of Articles 27, 41, and 47,” stated the Supreme Court.
In their decision, the seven-judge panel acknowledged a circular dated January 14, 1969, in which the then-Police Commissioner granted graduate police officers in the rank of constable a higher salary than their non-graduate counterparts.
As evidenced by a letter from the Permanent Secretary in Charge of Personnel Management dated July 26, 1995, this practice evolved into a policy within the police force over time.
In this letter, the Permanent Secretary directed that Graduate Police Constables be designated as University Graduate Police Constables and placed in Job Group J.
The Appellants were police constables serving in either the Administration Police Service (APS) or the Kenya Police Service (KPS), recruited between 2007 and 2016.
During their military service, they enrolled in and graduated from university with bachelor’s degrees in various fields.
Based on the 1969 circular and the 1995 letter, the appellants also relied on a press release issued by the then-NPSC chair, Johnston Kavuludi, on March 19, 2018.
NPSC confirmed that payment of special salaries (Job Group J) to graduate police officers in the National Police Service was legally protected and provided for in the service policy guidelines; consequently, they asserted that they had a reasonable expectation of being placed in Job Group J.
ALSO READ: Raila Odinga Joins Global Leaders at Opposition Conference in Poland
In response, they filed a petition with the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), alleging that the NPSC and Inspector General had received degree certificates from graduate police constables in the service, but had selectively and arbitrarily upgraded some to Job Group J while ignoring others with comparable qualifications.
According to them, this constituted preferential treatment in violation of Constitutional Articles 10, 27, 41(1), 43, 47, and 232.
The ELRC granted the appellants’ petition based on the pay stubs of officers designated as Graduate Police Constables, which revealed a disparity between their earnings and those of the appellants, even though both categories held the rank of the police constable.
The court also determined that the NPSC chairperson’s press release described the prevailing policy regarding graduate constables and that the appellants were therefore entitled to the policy’s benefits.
However, the court dismissed the appellants’ claim of discrimination.
The court concluded that the conduct and actions of the respondents constituted a denial, violation, infringement, and threat of violation of the appellants’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
On this basis, the ELRC issued a mandamus order directing the NPSC and Inspector General to pay all graduate constables a salary equivalent to that of a police inspector (Job Group J) by the current policy and as clarified in the press release.
The respondents, the National Police Service and the Inspector General of Police filed an appeal in response to this decision.
ALSO READ: Ruto Proposes Debt Restructuring Law to Ease Economic Pressure
The Court of Appeal determined that despite an express promise in the circular of 1969 and letter of 1995, there was a change with the promulgation of the Constitution of 2010 and the enactment of NPSC Act No. 30 of 2011.
This change gave rise to the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) and Inspector General under Articles 245 and 246, as well as the National Police Service Commission (NPSC Act) and National Police Service (NPS Act).
In addition, the NPSC Act stipulates that the NPSC can only determine the appropriate remuneration and benefits for the police service and NPSC staff with the advice of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC).
As a result of these developments, neither the press release nor the letter and circular at issue could supersede the Constitution and the law.
For this reason, the court determined that the press release did not give the appellants a reasonable expectation. The court found merit in the appeal and granted it, reversing the entire decision of the ELRC.
After the promulgation of the Constitution, the establishment of the NPSC, and the enactment of the NPS Act and the NPSC Act, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court determined that the parties in the case could no longer rely on the circular of 1969 and the letter of 1995 as the basis for their legitimate expectation.
The Supreme Court ordered that the Recruitment and Appointment Regulations, the Promotion Regulations, and the Career Progression Guidelines must govern the promotion and renomination of police officers.
ALSO READ: High Court Halts Controversial IG Koome Police Promotions
“As the press release was merely a clarification of a specific situation, it too could not serve as a basis for reasonable expectations. It reiterated the requirements for promotion of graduate constables,” stated the Supreme Court.
In addition, the Supreme Court determined that per Section 10(1)(b) of the NPSC Act, the NPSC has the authority to determine the appropriate remuneration and benefits for the National Police Service, but only with the advice of the SRC.
“The respondents cannot be ordered or directed to interfere with the appellants’ salaries without involving the SRC,” ruled the Supreme Court.
Graduate police officers’ salaries vary based on their rank and years of experience. However, as a general rule, police officers with a college degree earn more than those without.
Supreme Court Ruling on National Police Service Salaries
HEY READER. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE BY CLICKING ADS. DON’T FORGET TO HIT THE NOTIFICATION BELL FOR MORE UPDATES AROUND THE GLOBE.
