Court allows disciplinary process against biosafety boss to go on

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has declined to halt disciplinary proceedings against suspended National Biosafety Authority (NBA) CEO, Dr Roy Mugiira, over allegations of financial misconduct.

Justice Stella Rutto dismissed Dr Mugiira’s application to suspend the disciplinary process initiated by the NBA Board, thereby clearing the way for the continuation of proceedings that could determine his future at the helm of the state agency.

“The Court declines to grant the orders sought in the application dated 12 July 2024, and consequently, the application is disallowed with no orders as to costs,” ruled Justice Rutto.

She further reminded the NBA Board that, although it has the prerogative to discipline the CEO, the disciplinary process must be conducted in accordance with statutory procedural fairness.

“Specifically, the composition of the committee of the Board that may be appointed to sit in the disciplinary committee to handle the Claimant’s case should be as neutral as possible and should not include members who either sat in the audit committee or the ad hoc committee,” the court added.

Dr Mugiira was suspended by the NBA Board on 5 July 2024 following recommendations from an internal audit report covering the financial years 2022/2023 and 2023/2024.

According to court papers, the report flagged various instances of financial impropriety under his leadership.

The Board subsequently formed an ad hoc committee to further interrogate the findings. On 14 June 2024, the committee issued Dr Mugiira with a notice to show cause. He responded on 27 June, but on 5 July 2024, the Board resolved to suspend him for three months on half pay. Mr Nehemiah Ng’etich was subsequently appointed acting CEO.

Dr Mugiira contested the suspension, citing multiple irregularities in the process.

In his application, he argued that he was not given a chance to respond before the audit report was tabled before the Board.

“Some members of the ad hoc committee did not sign the final audit report, indicating a lack of consensus. The 5 July 2024 Special Board meeting, where the decision to suspend me was made, did not include key documents such as my response,” he stated in his application.

“The Board ignored a directive from the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Agriculture (the parent ministry) dated 9 July 2024, which called for the suspension to be put on hold,” he added.

Dr Mugiira accused the Board of acting with bias and claimed the process violated his right to fair administrative action.

“The suspension and ensuing disciplinary proceedings have been marred by irregularities and illegalities, and the same ought not to be sanctioned by this Honourable Court,” he argued in court filings.

In opposition, the NBA Board—through its Corporation Secretary, Mr Moses Sande—defended the suspension and the process leading up to it.

Mr Sande stated that the internal audit process included input from management, including from Dr Mugiira.

“The ad hoc committee followed due process and consulted officers, including the suspended CEO. The audit committee’s findings were adopted by the full Board, which resolved to issue a notice to show cause and, later, to suspend Dr Mugiira,” Mr Sande told the judge.

He also noted that the Principal Secretary’s letter was received after the Board meeting had already taken place.

“The letter by the Principal Secretary was delivered to the Board on Wednesday, 10 July 2024, long after the meeting which suspended the Claimant had taken place on 5 July 2024,” stated Mr Sande.

He further dismissed claims that the Board acted without authority, stating that all actions were in line with the NBA’s Human Resource Policy and the Code of Governance for State Corporations.

“The actions of the Respondent’s Board are and have been fair, justifiable, regular, and lawful, and there are valid reasons why the Claimant was suspended,” Mr Sande added.

In her ruling, Justice Rutto acknowledged that the employment relationship between Dr Mugiira and the NBA was still in force, and emphasised that disciplinary processes must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory safeguards.

However, she ruled that the Court would not interfere with the employer’s prerogative to discipline its staff unless there was a clear breach of the law or procedures—something she did not find in this case.

“The Court will not hinder the Respondent’s prerogative to discipline the Claimant,” Justice Rutto stated, but cautioned, “the disciplinary process must strictly comply with procedural fairness.”

The Court also cited Section 46(h) of the Employment Act, noting that initiating legal action against an employer should not, in itself, be grounds for punitive action—unless such action is proven to be irresponsible or without foundation.