The High Court has nullified the appointment of Dr. Charles Githinji as the chairperson of the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB), citing integrity violations that disqualify him from holding the office.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Enock Mwita, who argued that the appointment contravened Kenya’s constitutional principles surrounding leadership and integrity, as outlined under Article 232 and the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act.
This legal framework requires that public office appointments adhere to strict standards of transparency, fairness, and merit.
The decision to annul Githinji’s appointment was initiated by a legal challenge from Apollo Mboya, a former president of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).
Mboya raised concerns over Githinji’s professional conduct, particularly pointing to ethical violations in his past.
Central to Mboya’s argument was a conviction by the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC), which fined Dr. Githinji Ksh 27,000 for gross negligence.
This penalty was imposed following an incident where Githinji’s actions allegedly led to the death of a patient, raising serious questions about his professional ethics and suitability for the chairmanship role at PPB.
Justice Mwita, in his ruling, emphasized that the position demanded high standards of personal integrity, competence, and suitability.
According to Mwita, the failure to observe these principles during Githinji’s appointment process compromised the fairness and transparency that public service appointments must embody.
Article 232 of the Kenyan Constitution mandates that public officers should be selected on the basis of merit and professional ethics, thereby establishing a high bar for entry into public service.
The Public Service (Values and Principles) Act further underscores these values, demanding that appointments not only fulfill legal qualifications but also embody ethical standards and commitment to serving the public in a competent manner.
Mboya contended that the appointment process was not only flawed but also opaque, lacking transparency and fairness from the start.
He argued that such procedural shortcomings, coupled with Githinji’s past misconduct, made him unfit to serve as the PPB chairperson. Githinji defended himself by asserting that he is a registered pharmacist, not a medical doctor, and therefore should not be judged on the same grounds.
However, the court found this argument unpersuasive, maintaining that the ethical standards for all public servants, regardless of specific professional designation, require impeccable conduct and integrity.
Justice Mwita concluded that Dr. Githinji’s history of professional misconduct undermined the integrity and ethical standards expected of individuals in public office. His ruling stated that Githinji’s appointment did not align with the requirements set out in the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act, nor with the principles of open competition, merit, and professionalism required for public appointments.
The court found that the process through which Githinji was appointed lacked essential transparency and violated the spirit of the Constitution, which upholds values of accountability and integrity within public service.
The court’s decision has brought attention to the rigorous standards that public office appointees in Kenya must meet and the growing demand for accountability in public service.
The ruling serves as a reminder that the ethical obligations outlined in Kenya’s legal framework are not just guidelines but are enforceable standards.
This outcome highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that public office bearers meet these integrity benchmarks, thereby fostering a culture of accountability and ethical governance in Kenya’s public institutions.
