A silent but vicious battle is brewing between the Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) over the Sh4 billion forensic laboratory.
The authority wants the lab off the hands of the DCI saying it’s affecting their investigations, especially in cases where police officers are involved.
Dr Walter Ogon, an IPOA Commissioner, told the National Assembly Constitutional Implementation and Oversight Committee (CIOC) that they want the lab to be a stand-alone institution so that it can serve all agencies without any interference from the officers.
“The forensic lab should be a stand-alone institution, it should not be under DCI, police or IPOA so that it can serve all people without any interference with the outcome of investigation,” Dr Oron told the committee.
Dr Oron who appeared before the Githunguri MP Gathoni Wamuchomba-led committee together with IPOA CEO Elema Halake addressed concerns about its effectiveness in overseeing the National Police Service Commission said the lab has excellent facilities that should be serving other agencies too that need to conduct investigations.
“This is an excellent facility with expensive equipment, however our proposal would be that it should be a stand-alone facility,” Dr Oron said.
He told the committee that they had a similar proposal to the David Maraga Taskforce and stressed that the lab would operate independently to maintain its credibility.
Borabu MP Patrick Osero raised the question on how IPOA is operating with the investigations using the same lab manned by the officers.
“How do you investigate an officer using the same lab they are manning, do you expect any results? This is a zero sum game,” Mr Osero said.
Launched by former President Uhuru Kenyatta in June 2022, the facility has different sections, including fingerprints, ballistics, cybercrime, document examination, economic crimes, toxicology, biological and chemistry sections.
The facility is hosting 10 various laboratories which help investigators on dealing with various crimes such as rape, defilement, kidnappings, murder, cyber fraud, illicit arms among other sophisticated crimes.
The facility also has a forensic chemistry lab which conducts microscopy of gun-shot powder residue on clothes and human skin to determine the holder of the firearm used in crime.
During the Thursday meeting, the authority told the lawmakers that among the challenges they are facing in executing their mandate is the non-cooperation by the National Police Service.
The authority told the committee that there is undue delay effecting arrest warrants and summons to suspect police officers and failure to produce required documents and cover-up of suspect police officers by their colleagues.
It also cited difficulty in accessing forensic services thereby causing delay in in their investigations
The authority further told MPs that parallel investigations were carried out with DCI with some cases ending up in court but with weak evidence this despite IPOA having gathered more evidence that would have nailed more suspects.
Among the functions of the authority as outlined in Section Six of IPOA Act include investigating any complaints related to disciplinary or criminal offences committed by any member of the service, ensuring independent oversight in handling of complaints by the service, conducting inspections of police premises and monitoring policing operations affecting members of the public.
Last month, another IPOA Commissioner Joseph Waiganjo complained that police are frustrating their efforts in bringing to book officers accused of killing protesters.
Mr Waiganjo accused the police of refusal to avail deployment schedules, arms registers, records of their usage and ignoring summonses.
“In the life of Ipoa, we have not seen the levels of non-cooperation from senior commanders that we are seeing now. It is not just lack of cooperation from police senior command, it is also from some government institutions," Mr Waiganjo said.
The frosty relationship between the authority and NPS was also cited as among other reasons that led to the collapse of the outstanding police service awards.
Launched in 2014, the program was meant to recognize police officers who perform their duties in an exemplary manner.
However, apart from budgetary constraints that led to the halting of the program, the authority told MPs that there was also non-cooperation by the National Police Service
According to the CEO, during implementation of the program, there was a delayed return of nomination forms by the police, sometimes they would return blank forms, low and late response and self-nomination by the officers.
In addition, the authority told the committee that there was also lobbying by the officers to be awarded, discriminated against in the list of officers awarded during promotions.
