By Andrew Kariuki

Multiple officials from the Public Service Commission (PSC) have filed responses in the High Court in Kisumu opposing a contempt of court application lodged in Petition No. E008 of 2026.

The case, filed by petitioner Jane Ann Onyango, challenges the Commission’s ongoing public participation process on proposed regulations concerning the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In replying affidavits submitted to the court, several PSC commissioners and senior officials, including Dr. Irene Asienga, Francis Meja, Jacqueline Manani, Mary Kimonye, Harun Hassan, Mwanamaka Mabruki and Dr. Francis Owino, maintain that they acted within the law and did not willfully disobey any court orders.

According to the responses, the public participation process under scrutiny began in 2024 as part of the Commission’s constitutional and statutory mandate under Article 158 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Public Service Commission Act.

The officials argue that the process has previously faced multiple legal challenges, many of which were either dismissed, withdrawn or struck out by the courts. These include petitions and judicial review applications filed in Nairobi that sought to halt the development of the regulations.

They further state that the Commission complied with earlier court orders that had temporarily halted the process, and only resumed once those orders were lifted in December 2025.

In a separate response, the Commission’s Secretary and Chief Executive Officer Paul Famba told the court that there was no deliberate defiance of court directives. He explained that the stakeholder validation forum held in March 2026 had been scheduled in advance and that commissioners only became aware of fresh court orders after the exercise had taken place.

Famba added that upon learning of the orders, the Commission moved swiftly to halt the process and refrained from taking any further steps pending court directions.

Court documents also show that the PSC has formally entered appearance in the matter through its legal department, confirming its participation in the proceedings alongside the Attorney-General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions as parties to the case.

The respondents now argue that the contempt application lacks merit, insisting that their actions were undertaken in good faith and in compliance with both the Constitution and existing court orders.

The matter is expected to proceed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Kisumu.