The order by the National Assembly Public Accounts Committee to Inspector-General of Police (IG) Douglas Kanja and National Police Service (NPS) accounting Officer Bernice Sialaal Lemedeket to surrender HR functions – especially control of the payroll – to the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) raises constitutional and governance concerns.
The directive misinterprets the roles of key institutions and risks undermining the operational independence of police. Under the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, the IG is designated as the accounting officer for the NPS.
This position comes with the exclusive mandate to manage the finances of the Service, including payroll administration. The payroll is a sensitive instrument tied to accountability, integrity and the independence of the service.
Any attempt by the NPSC to assume responsibility for or access the payroll exceeds its mandate. Article 246 clearly assigns the commission the role of overseeing human resource functions, which include recruitment, promotions, appointments and discipline. These are key roles, but they do not include financial or payroll management. Stepping into these areas undermines the structure and stability of the service.
Control of payroll systems
Parliament, on the other hand, plays an oversight role. But oversight does not mean administrative control. Parliament can question, audit and seek accountability through lawful mechanisms, but it cannot direct the IG to cede control of payroll systems. That would be interference, not oversight.
Constitutional mandates exist for a reason. The IG’s independence is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is a constitutional safeguard. It ensures the service operates without undue political or institutional pressure. Undermining this independence risks politicising a critical institution charged with national security and public safety.
If the IG loses control over payroll and financial management, the chain of command becomes compromised, accountability is blurred and operational integrity suffers. The IG must be allowed to carry out his responsibilities as assigned by law, without interference from institutions seeking to expand their mandates.
Boundaries set out in law
The NPSC has an important and respectable role to play in shaping a disciplined and professional force. But that role does not include financial control. Attempts to expand its reach into areas assigned to the IG not only amount to mission creep, but also set a precedent for institutional overreach.
Let us uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Constitutional actors, including Parliament and the NPSC, must respect the boundaries set out in law. The IG must be supported, not second-guessed, in his lawful duty to manage the financial affairs of the service.
The payroll belongs where the Constitution placed it, which is under the custody of the Inspector-General of Police. Let’s not compromise accountability in the name of oversight.
