Eliud Lagat: I had taken leave, not resigned!

By Newsflash Team

Embattled Deputy Inspector General of Police Eliud Lagat has dismissed claims that he vacated his office, asserting instead that he was on a lawful 14-day leave and never officially relinquished his duties.

On June 16, Lagat issued a statement suggesting he had stepped aside to allow investigations into the death of teacher Albert Ojwang’, who died after being held at Central Police Station on June 7. At the time, his statement read:

“In the good and conscientious thought of my role and responsibilities as Deputy Inspector General of Police – Kenya Police Service, and in view of the ongoing investigations on the unfortunate incident of the death of Mr Albert Ojwang’, I have today opted to step aside… pending completion of investigations.”

However, court documents filed in response to a suit by rights activist Eliud Matindi reveal that Lagat insists he never left his position nor delegated his responsibilities to anyone else.

Through lawyer Cecil Miller, Lagat now argues that he was only away on leave. He claims he remains fully in office and never designated Deputy Inspector General Douglas Kanja—or anyone—to serve in his place.

Official leave, not exit

According to Lagat, his absence was within the confines of law, having applied for annual leave which was duly approved. A letter from Kanja confirmed the leave approval and wished him a restful break:

“Following your application for annual leave, I am writing to confirm the approval and granted 14 days leave… effective from June 17, 2025… During your absence, your duties will be performed by your principal assistant.”

Lagat refutes any insinuation that he abandoned office or violated the law. “I categorically deny and rebut the allegations, insinuations or inferences thereof that I unlawfully vacated office… or that I purported to appoint a successor,” he said in his affidavit.

He also disputes claims that he was under investigation, saying no investigative authority, including the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), had initiated a formal probe implicating him.

Interestingly, Lagat had earlier stated publicly that he was stepping aside in the spirit of integrity and transparency, citing public concern over the death in custody of Ojwang’.

Legal dispute over DIG’s status

In court, Lagat maintains his absence was temporary and that he returned to duty upon conclusion of his leave. He argues that his decision to step aside in the June 16 statement was voluntary, made in good faith to allow a fair process and protect the credibility of the police service.

But Matindi, who has sued the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) and the Attorney General, wants the court to declare the DIG’s position vacant. He claims Lagat’s “stepping aside” left a leadership vacuum and that the NPSC failed to appoint a replacement.

The activist also argues that the DIG has no legal grounds to step aside while still executing duties, insisting that only the appointing authority can authorize such a move. According to him, the lack of a substantive officer violates the Constitution and undermines the Kenya Police Service.

Matindi says the issue must be treated seriously, considering the public interest in the matter of Ojwang’s death. He further asserts that NPSC and other oversight agencies have failed to uphold their mandate.

Court battle over interpretation

The case revolves around differing interpretations of Lagat’s June 16 communication and whether it constituted a resignation, leave of absence, or a procedural misstep.

Matindi argues that allowing Lagat to continue in office while under a cloud of controversy weakens public confidence and accountability in the service. He seeks a declaration that Lagat’s stay in office post-June 16 is unconstitutional.

He also wants the court to compel NPSC to initiate a recruitment process for a new Deputy Inspector General.

But Lagat, through his lawyer, says there is no legal basis to suspend or remove him. He states that his role as DIG has not been legally or administratively challenged by any competent authority.

The human rights defender, however, wants the court to restrain Lagat from returning to office, claiming that the DIG’s presence could interfere with ongoing investigations by IPOA and other independent bodies.

Lagat insists that his decision was within his constitutional rights, made purely to allow smooth investigations and protect the image of the police service.

As the legal tug-of-war continues, the court is expected to rule on whether the DIG’s temporary absence constituted an abdication of office or was a justified administrative break.