Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told members of Congress on Friday that he “did nothing wrong” in his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and saw no signs of Epstein’s sexual abuse as he faced hours of grilling from lawmakers over his connections to the disgraced financier from more than two decades ago.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” the former Democratic president said in an opening statement he shared on social media at the outset of the deposition.

The closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, New York, marks the first time a former president has been compelled to testify to Congress.

It comes a day after Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sat with lawmakers for her own deposition, where she told lawmakers that she had no knowledge of how Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and had no recollection of even meeting him.

Bill Clinton has also not been accused of any wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are grappling with what accountability in the United States looks like at a time when men around the world have been toppled from their high-powered posts for maintaining their connections with Epstein after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.

“Men — and women for that matter — of great power and great wealth from all across the world have been able to get away with a lot of heinous crimes and they haven’t been held accountable and they have not even had to answer questions,” said Republican Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, before the deposition began Friday.

Hillary Clinton told lawmakers Thursday that she had no knowledge of how Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and had no recollection of even meeting him. But Bill Clinton will have to answer questions on a well-documented relationship with Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, even if it was from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Bill Clinton in his opening statement said that he would likely often tell the committee that he did not recall the specifics of events from more than 20 years ago. But he also expressed certainty that he had not witness signs of Epstein’s abuse.

Still, Republicans were relishing the opportunity to scrutinize the former Democratic president under oath.

“No one’s accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, but I think the American people have a lot of questions,” Comer said.

Republicans finally get a chance to question Bill Clinton

Republicans have wanted to question Bill Clinton about Epstein for years, especially as conspiracy theories arose following Epstein’s 2019 suicide in a New York jail cell while he faced sex trafficking charges.

Those calls reached a fever pitch late last year when several photos of the former president surfaced in the Department of Justice’s first release of case files on Epstein and Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted of sex trafficking in December 2021 but maintains she’s innocent. Bill Clinton was photographed on a plane seated alongside a woman, whose face is redacted, with his arm around her. Another photo showed Clinton and Maxwell in a pool with another person whose face was redacted.

2:39Epstein files: Trump says ‘I don’t like the pictures being shown’ of Bill Clinton, blames Democrats

Epstein also visited the White House several times during Clinton’s presidency, and the pair later made several international trips together for their humanitarian work. Comer claimed the committee has collected evidence that Epstein visited the White House 17 times and that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s airplane 27 times.

“We are only here because he hid it from everyone so well for so long,” Bill Clinton said in his opening statement. “And by the time it came to light with his 2008 guilty plea, I had long stopped associating with him.”

Comer pledged extensive questioning of the former president. He claimed that Hillary Clinton had repeatedly deferred questions about Epstein to her husband.

Bill Clinton went after Comer for calling his wife before the committee, telling him that “including her was simply not right.”

The committee was working to quickly publish a transcript and video recording of her deposition.

Has a precedent been set?

Democrats, who have supported the push to get answers from Bill Clinton, are arguing that it sets a precedent that should also apply to U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who had his own relationship with Epstein.

“I think that President Trump needs to man up, get in front of this committee and answer the questions and stop calling this investigation a hoax,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, on Friday.

Comer has pushed back on that idea, saying that Trump has answered questions on Epstein from the press.

3:42Hillary Clinton testifies she ‘never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication’

Democrats are also calling for the resignation of Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick was a longtime neighbour of Epstein in New York City but said on a podcast that he severed ties with Epstein following a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.

The public release of case files showed that Lutnick actually had two engagements with Epstein years later. He attended a 2011 event at Epstein’s home, and in 2012 his family had lunch with Epstein on his private island.

“He should be removed from office and at a minimum should come before the committee,” Garcia said of Lutnick.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace questioned Hillary Clinton about Lutnick’s relationship to Epstein during the deposition on Thursday. On Friday morning, Mace joined in calling for the commerce secretary to come before the committee.

“I believe we will have the votes to subpoena him,” Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna said.

By Andrew Kariuki

A shocking fraud case involving millions of shillings allegedly siphoned from the Social Health Authority (SHA) has taken a new turn at the Milimani Law Courts, after the key suspects denied multiple charges while the court issued arrest warrants for several co-accused persons who failed to appear.

The criminal proceedings, covering multiple cases filed on February 27, 2026, expose what prosecutors describe as a coordinated scheme involving fraudulent registration of medical facilities, manipulation of government systems, and unlawful claims for payments running into tens of millions of shillings.

At the centre of the case is Harun Liluma, who appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty to all counts leveled against him across the cases.

He is accused of playing a critical role in unlawfully accessing and manipulating the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council’s digital system (rHRIS), enabling unqualified facilities to be registered and subsequently benefit from public funds.

The court granted Liluma a ksh500,000 cash bail or an alternative one million bond in each case which ultimately tallies to a cash bail of Ksh 4 million or an alternative bond of Ksh 8 million.

Pending the fulfillment of the bail terms, he was ordered to be remanded at Industrial Area Prison.

In the same proceedings, the court issued warrants of arrest against all other accused persons who were not present in court.

The cases, filed under several criminal case numbers, detail a large web of alleged fraudulent dealings by different medical facilities and individuals.

Prosecutors allege that between January and August 2025, the accused persons conspired to irregularly secure registration of health facilities with the aim of accessing funds from the Social Health Authority.

Among the entities named is Dimtu Nursing Home Limited, whose directors are accused of conspiring to fraudulently obtain registration, leading to payments amounting to Ksh 6,103,391.91.

In the same case, one of the directors is also charged with operating the facility without a valid license and laundering proceeds of crime.

In a separate case, Adfaal Kids Care Medical Centre Limited and its directors face charges of conspiracy to defraud and operating without proper licensing, with allegations that they received Ksh 1,273,969.10 through irregular means.

The prosecution further claims that the facility’s registration was facilitated through unauthorized access and manipulation of government systems.

Another case involves Danaba Care Hospital Limited, where the accused are alleged to have fraudulently obtained Ksh 7,593,485.10 by falsely presenting the facility as an approved healthcare provider.

They also face charges of money laundering and operating an unlicensed medical institution.

Similarly, Kamsihawa Medical Centre and its officials are accused of fraudulently obtaining Ksh 5,608,819.35 through false representations, alongside charges of operating without a license and conspiracy to defraud.

The other individuals named in the cases include Yussuf Siat Jelle, Mohamed Mohamud Sheik, Ali Ahmed Adan, Mohamednoor Ismael Omar, Mohammed Kulow Ali, Hassan Adan Ibrahim, Kamsia Hassan Kala and Hawa Alinoor Malo, all of whom are alleged to have participated, at different levels, in a coordinated scheme to fraudulently procure registration of medical facilities, operate without valid licences and obtain funds from the Social Health Authority through false pretences.

Across all cases, Harun Liluma is consistently accused of unauthorized access to the rHRIS system, altering records and abusing his position as a public officer to facilitate the fraudulent registration of the facilities, actions which prosecutors say resulted in significant financial loss to the public.

Investigators allege that their actions, carried out on various dates in 2025, contributed to the irregular acquisition of millions of shillings in public funds, forming part of a broader network under scrutiny in the ongoing criminal proceedings.

The prosecution’s case also further indicates that the alleged scheme relied on manipulation of official systems to bypass regulatory safeguards, allowing unlicensed or improperly registered facilities to receive payments from the national health scheme.

The total amount in dispute across the consolidated cases stands at Ksh 20,579,665.46, highlighting the sheer scale of the alleged fraud.

The court also noted that several witnesses are expected to testify in the matter, including government officials and other individuals linked to the registration and payment processes.

With one suspect now in custody and others facing arrest, the case is expected to test the integrity of regulatory systems within the healthcare sector and raise broader questions about oversight of public funds.

The matter will be mentioned on March 12, 2026, for pretrial directions as investigations and efforts to apprehend the remaining suspects continue.

By Andrew Kariuki

The Court of Appeal sitting in Mombasa has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the law on workplace sexual harassment, significantly expanding the interpretation of employee protection under the Employment Act, 2007.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Murgor, Nyamweya and Ngenye overturned key findings of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), setting out authoritative guidance on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace.

The case arose from a dispute in which an a lady, M. K, who worked as a Communications Officer and Alumni Affairs Coordinator, accused her employer’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeremiah Kambi, of subjecting her to repeated sexual advances through WhatsApp messages.

She argued that the messages were sexual in nature, unwelcome and offensive and that they created a hostile work environment that ultimately forced her out of employment.

The respondents denied the allegations, maintaining that the communications had been taken out of context and were influenced by a pre-existing family relationship between the parties.

They further contended that the employment relationship ended by mutual agreement and not due to any misconduct.

At the trial court, Justice Ongaya dismissed the claim for sexual harassment, finding that the messages did not meet the legal threshold under Section 6 of the Employment Act.

The court held that there was no evidence of promises of employment benefits or threats linked to the alleged conduct, and characterized the exchanges as private communications within a complex personal relationship.

Dissatisfied with that decision, M.K moved to the Court of Appeal, challenging the interpretation of the law and the evaluation of the evidence.

In its judgment, the appellate court undertook an extensive review of both domestic and international legal frameworks on sexual harassment, including constitutional provisions on equality and dignity, international human rights instruments, and the Employment Act.

The court emphasized that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and a violation of human dignity and clarified that Section 6 of the Employment Act recognizes two distinct forms of sexual harassment.

The first, commonly referred to as “quid pro quo” harassment, involves situations where sexual conduct is tied to employment benefits or threats.

The second, which the court found applicable in this case, is “hostile work environment” harassment, which includes unwelcome sexual language, conduct or materials that are offensive and have a negative impact on an employee’s working conditions.

The judges found that the trial court had erred by focusing solely on whether there was evidence of quid pro quo harassment and failing to properly consider whether the conduct amounted to a hostile work environment.

Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court of Appeal noted that the respondent did not deny sending the WhatsApp messages, and that the messages were overtly sexual in nature.

It further found that the appellant had clearly indicated that the advances were unwelcome.

The court stressed that the determination of whether conduct is unwelcome is subjective, stating that it is the victim, not the perpetrator or the court, who determines what is offensive.

Importantly, the judges rejected the argument that private electronic communication falls outside the scope of workplace harassment, holding that messages sent through platforms such as WhatsApp, SMS or email can constitute sexual harassment where they occur within an employment relationship.

The court further ruled that the existence of a familial relationship between the parties did not negate the power dynamics of the workplace, noting that the respondent was the appellant’s direct supervisor.

The appellate court concluded that the sexual communication, viewed within the employment context, was unwelcome, offensive and detrimental and that it created a hostile work environment that contributed to the appellant’s exit from employment.

In setting aside the findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeal awarded the appellant Ksh 531,000 in terminal dues and Ksh 1,000,000 in general damages for sexual harassment.

The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications in Kenyan employment law, particularly in defining the scope of workplace sexual harassment and the use of digital communication in professional relationships.

It firmly establishes that unwelcome sexual communication, even when conducted through informal digital platforms, can amount to workplace harassment where it occurs within an employment relationship and undermines an employee’s dignity, well-being or working environment.

By Andrew Kariuki

The Court of Appeal in Nairobi has suspended a decision by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) that had removed key human resource functions from the National Police Service Commission (NPSC), pending the hearing and determination of an appeal.

In the earlier ruling delivered on October 30, 2025, Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that the NPSC does not qualify as a national security organ under Article 239(1) of the Constitution and therefore lacks the mandate to conduct recruitment within the police service.

The court further found that the Commission had no authority to assign, promote, suspend or dismiss police officers.

That decision effectively cleared the way for Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja to oversee the recruitment of 10,000 police officers.

Following the ruling, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to halt its implementation, arguing that the judgment had far-reaching implications on the management of police personnel and the constitutional structure governing the National Police Service.

In its application, LSK warned that allowing the ruling to stand would disrupt the established legal framework governing recruitment, promotions and disciplinary processes within the police service.

“That unless the judgement of the Employment and Labour Relations Court is stayed, the processes of recruitment, appointment, promotion, removal, and dismissal within the National Police Service are likely to be undertaken by an organ that lacks constitutional authority to perform those functions,” LSK stated.

A three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, comprising President of the Court Justice Daniel Kiio Musinga, Justice Mumbi Ngugi and Justice George Odunga, granted the stay orders on February 27, 2026.

In their ruling, the judges observed that the dispute raises complex constitutional questions regarding the respective roles of the National Police Service Commission and the National Police Service, which require detailed examination at the appeal stage.

“We hereby stay the judgement of the ELRC made on October 30, 2025, in ELRC Petition No. E196 of 2025, to the extent that it declared that the Constitution vests in the National Police Service and the Inspector General the exclusive and independent command concerning promotion and dismissal of the members of the service,” the judges ruled.

However, the appellate court clarified that its decision does not automatically restore the contested powers to the NPSC. Instead, the exercise of those functions will remain in abeyance until the appeal is fully heard and determined.

The case is expected to play a significant role in clarifying the constitutional boundaries between the National Police Service Commission and the National Police Service, particularly in relation to recruitment, promotions and disciplinary control within the police service.