Court didn’t quash Mercy Wanjau’s post as Communications Authority Acting DG

Ngene Gituku, Board Chairman of the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), has asserted that the posting of Mrs Mercy Wanjau as the acting Director General of the industry regulatory is intact.

The chairman who was reacting to what he termed as misleading media reports relating to Employment and Labour Relations Court decision on Petition No. 138 of 2019 affirmed that Employment and Labour Relations Court did not nullify the appointment of Mrs Wanjau as the acting CA Director General.

While clarifying that the court, observed that there was no CA Board in place to appoint the acting Director General following the lapse of the term of the immediate former boss, Francis Wamukota Wangusi, the chairman was categorical that the some media reports erroneously claimed that the recent appointment of Mrs. Wanjau was quashed on account of failure of her recruitment process meeting the requisite legal and constitutional requirements.

Gituku was further dismayed with reports that purported to suggest that the court sitting in Nairobi, had directed that the immediate former CA Director General returns to office until such a time that the Board appoints his successor.

According to the chairman, the unique circumstamce that prompted the appointment of Mrs Wanjau was acknowleged by the court adding that section 27 (c) of the State Corporations Act, allows the State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC),  to “where necessary, advise on the appointment, removal or transfer of officers and staff of state corporations, the secondment of public officers to state corporations and the terms and conditions of any appointment, removal or transfer, or secondment.”

Within that provision, the court stated that when the advisory is given, it applies provided the advisory does not contravene statutory or other written law, Gituku averred.

Ngene re-emphacised that the court pronounced itself clearly on the appointment of the acting Director General adding that: “No letter of an acting appointment was exhibited to the Court and therefore the Court cannot make further findings on whether there exists a valid acting appointment and whether it may have been made by the lawful appointing
authorities.”