Lecturers say Mugenda, Imbuga in office illegally

Olive mugenda

By Juma Kwayera

A bitter row is brewing over the eligibility of Kenyatta University and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology vice-chancellors to head the two institutions.

In separate judicial review applications instituted by teaching staff in the respective universities, the lecturers argue that the renewal of the contracts of the two vice chancellors was irregular as the reappointments did not go through competitive process as provided in the Universities Act and State Corporations Act.

Consequently the staff, in a case filed under certificate of urgency, wants the reappointment of Olive Mwihaki Mugenda of Kenyatta University voided and a fresh hiring process commenced. However, Prof Mugenda, in a 135-page reply, argues that the judicial review sought is time-barred and that her antagonists are motivated by malice and personal differences.

Mabel Imbuga, whose reappointment is being challenged by lecturer Naftaly Rugara Muiga, faces similar allegations. Prof Mugenda’s renewed five-year contract is being contested by Dr Wilfrida Itolondo, Dr Mumah Solomon, Dr Elena Korir, Martha Miyandazi and Fred Obare.

In the case against Prof Imbuga, Cabinet Secretary for Education Prof Jacob Kaimenyi and Attorney General Githu Muigai are first respondents, while the President, the AG, Kenyatta University Council and Prof Mugenda are the respondents in the KU case. The date for hearing of Imbuga’s case is yet to be fixed but that of Mugenda was meant to commence Thursday, but it was been pushed to December 16. The case will be heard by Justice Njagi Marete of the Industrial Court.

However, it is the submissions by the AG that have touched off a furore over selective interpretation of the law following his argument Prof Imbuga was eligible serving the first term, but she should have gone through a competitive process for her reappointment. Further, the renewal of her contract should have received the President’s nod.

Submits Prof Muigai: “The fact that one is eligible for reappointment does not take away the requirement that the process should be competitive... The bottom line is that the process should be competitive as per the provisions of Constitution.”

He, however, adds a rider that even if an incumbent is eligible, reappointment is not guaranteed.

“It (eligibility) means that one can participate in the selection process and can be considered a possible candidate, and that he or she should participate in a competitive process.”

Further, the two reappointments were not done by the President as required by law.

In her replying affidavit, Mugenda accuses adversaries of concealment of material facts about staffing, acting belatedly and maliciously to force her out of office.

She argues that the allegations of embezzlement, mismanagement, and cronyism have no bearing since the jurisdiction of the court does not concern itself with the merits of management of the university.