THAT the appointment of CEO of the 2nd Respondent has historical failures – with the first and only CEO of the 2nd Respondent having been recruited after the Applicant/Petitioner moved to Court under HCCC No. 144 of 2014 (Nairobi)

THAT then, and as at now, the Applicant/Petitioner sued the 1st, 2nd and 3rd The Applicant/Petitioner argued that although the then CEO Mr Victor Kyalo (and current Principal Secretary of ICT and reporting to the 1st Respondent) was "... himself possibly qualified but (he was) a beneficiary of a tainted, skewed, mysterious and illegal process of having been hired without competition and public participation and whose primary loyalty is to the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent’s Board and not to the people of Kenya.

THAT the Applicant/Petitioner then, and as at now, argued thus "That no statutory or delegated legislation can purport to take away the supremacy of the actual letter and envisaged spirit of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 as it shall be null and void to that extent of inconsistency especially as read together with the sovereign power of the people of Kenya under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010".

THAT it is fair and just to say that the said former CEO of the 2nd Respondent (and now the Principal Secretary of the 1st Respondent) presents a conflict of interest considering that two interviews, including the separate advertisements for the position made out on January 14, 2016 and September 2, 2016 is not yet filled.

THAT sometimes last year or thereabouts, the 1st Respondent did receive names of at least 3 shortlisted candidates for the position of CEO from the then board of the 2nd Respondent.

Add comment


Security code
Refresh