Siaya Governor James Orengo has slammed the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) after it called for the immediate revocation of appointments in his county government.
In a letter dated 12th August 2026, Governor Orengo faulted the Commission for publicly releasing an advisory opinion concerning appointments and administrative arrangements within the Siaya County Government, without formally furnishing his office of the same.
“At the outset, the County Government places on record that, despite the public release and circulation of the purported Advisory Opinion, it was neither formally furnished with the opinion nor afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, evidence and representations upon which the adverse conclusions appear to have been based,” the letter reads in part.
In the advisory issued on Monday, August 10, CAJ flagged five appointments made by Governor Orengo, over what it terms as “unlawful and irregular”.
Among the positions the CAJ called for immediate revocation include; the Acting Chief Officer for Tourism, Culture, Sports and Arts, Acting County Attorney, Director of the Governor’s Press, Acting County Secretary and the Finance and Economic Planning County Executive Committee (CEC) Member.
“The Advisory Opinion has been issued following a request dated 16th June 2026 by the County Assembly of Siaya, through the Office of the Clerk, seeking the Commission’s guidance on several appointments and extensions of tenure which the Assembly alleged had been undertaken in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the County Governments Act, 2012, the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act, 2017, the Office of the County Attorney Act, 2020, the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012, and other applicable legal instruments,” the Ombudsman stated.
The Commission further alleged that it found some of the appointments were made without the mandatory approval of the County Assembly, while others did not undergo the required recruitment process, or meet prescribed requirements.
But in his rejoinder, Governor Orengo regretted that a constitutional commission established to safeguard administrative justice would publicly issue adverse findings against a public institution before according that institution the basic right to be heard.
Reliance on allegations
“This is not a mere procedural technicality. It raises serious questions concerning the legality, fairness and constitutional validity of the process.”
Orengo further accuses the CAJ of making a decision based solely on allegations originating from the ‘political’ Siaya County Assembly without meaningfully engaging with the County Executive first.
“An independent constitutional commission must independently establish facts, hear all sides and apply the law impartially. It must not become an instrument through which allegations by one political actor are amplified and converted into adverse findings against another.
“The striking between aspects of the original complaint and the language and conclusions of the purported findings further raises legitimate questions regarding the independence and objectivity of the process. The fundamental question remains: What evidence did the Commission independently obtain from the County Executive before reaching its conclusions?”
The County Government of Siaya has, therefore, vehemently rejected the said advisory opinion, insisting that it is a plot to manufacture an institutional crisis within the administration.
According to Orengo, administrative decisions lawfully made within the constitutional mandate of the County Executive cannot simply be characterised as unlawful merely because they are politically contested.
‘Furnish us with evidence’
Consequently, the county government has directed the Commission to formally furnish it with;
- The complete Advisory Opinion, including all findings and recommendations;
- The complaint or petition, together with all supporting documentation;
- All evidence and material relied upon in reaching the findings;
- The record of notices and opportunities allegedly afforded to the County Government to respond; and
- The legal and jurisdictional basis upon which the Commission proceeded to make determinations extending beyond its advisory mandate.
“The Commission must uphold the very principles of administrative justice that it exists to protect. Independence, impartiality, due process and respect for constitutional boundaries cannot be demanded from others while being disregarded by the institution itself.”
