Court stops use of transfers to punish police officers

The Labour Court has clipped the powers of police boses to arbitrarily transfer officers as a way of punishing them, terming the practice illegal and abusive.

In a landmark judgment, Justice Mathews Nduma of the Employment and Labour Relations Court warned National Police Service (NPS) commanders that transfers cannot be used to discipline officers, stressing that police officers, like all workers, are entitled to fair labour practices and protection of their family life.

"Transfers should serve administrative purposes, not as a means to punish or harass officers. Every officer has the right to stability in their posting and protection of their family life, just as guaranteed under the Constitution and police service regulations,” Justice Nduma emphasized.

He made the remarks after quashing the transfer of a detective from the DCI Headquarters barely three months after he took up the new posting, terming the move irrational, unfair and a violation of both the Constitution and the National Police Service Standing Orders.

The petitioner,  Police Constable Martin Paul Geofrey is a serving officer attached to the DCI Headquarters, Anti-Abductions Unit.

He told the court that he joined the Police Service on October 6, 2008 and has served diligently with a clean record in Isiolo and Mandera counties before being posted to Buruburu Police Station in Nairobi.

He said he was later irregularly transferred to Mandera at the instigation of one Sergeant Sheila Kipsoi who works at the Anti-Narcotics Unit.

The officer was subsequently moved to Gatundu Police Station, then to Mugutha Police Station in Kiambu County, where he worked until February 27, 2025, when he was transferred to the DCI Headquarters, Kiambu Road.

Geofrey said he had served at the DCI Headquarters for about three months only when he was issued with a transfer to the Anti-Stock Theft Unit, a move he objected to and challenged in court.

He told the court that under Chapter 72 paragraph 6(2) of the National Police Service Standing Orders (NPS–SO), in order to be considered for a transfer, an officer shall serve in a duty station continuously for at least one year and a maximum period of three years.

He argued that it was unlawful and unfair to transfer him from DCI after serving for just three months.

In his petition, Geofrey linked his troubles to a long-running conflict with Sgt. Sheila, whom he met at the DCI canteen about a month after joining headquarters.

Four days after this interaction, he said, he was called by his supervisor and questioned about the circumstances that led to his transfer from Buruburu Police Station.

He disclosed to his superiors that sometime in 2016 he had been wrongly accused by the said Sgt Kipsoi and charged in Milimani Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Case No. 1381 of 2016.

He said he was acquitted but was then immediately transferred from Buruburu to Mandera.

Geofrey argued that the transfer from DCI after only three months, following earlier frequent transfers, was unreasonable, unfair labour practice and unfair administrative action in violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) of the Constitution.

In his decision, Justice Nduma agreed with the petitioner, noting that frequent deployments which do not allow an officer to settle at a new station amount to unfair labour practices’ and also adversely affect the education of the officer’s minor children.

“It is the finding of the court in this matter that the intended transfer of the Petitioner upon being transferred to DCI Headquarters three months before and considering the past frequent transfers meted on the Petitioner prior to his deployment to DCI Headquarters, is irrational, unfair and a violation of National Police Service Standing Order 6(2) which provides that ‘an officer shall serve in duty station continuously for at least one year’,” he ruled.

He went further, warning against the misuse of transfers as a backdoor punishment tool.

“The court finds that the manner in which the Petitioner has been frequently deployed and transferred suggests that the transfer is being used as a disciplinary manner, which should not happen,” he said.

“Such conduct violates Articles 41(1) and 47(1) of the Constitution and therefore does not only constitute unfair labour practice but also amounts to unfair administrative action.”

Justice Nduma stressed that where there are concerns about discipline or performance, the police must follow proper disciplinary procedures instead of shuffling officers around.

“If the National Police Service has any issue with the discipline or performance of the Petitioner or any police officer for that matter, transfer is not the go to measure,” he said.

“This, if frequently done, as is the case with the Petitioner, amounts to harassment, not only to the officer but also to his family with psychological, financial and educational implication on the officer and his family who in this case are school going children.”

Justice Nduma allowed the petition and issued a declaration that the transfer of the petitioner to the Anti-Stock Theft Unit was unlawful, irregular and in violation of  Constitution and the NPS Standing Orders.

He also issued an order of certiorari quashing the said unlawful transfer of  Geofrey from DCI Headquarters to the Anti-Stock Theft Unit having only been at the DCI Headquarters for a period of 3 months only.

The National Police Service and its top leadership were further ordered to pay the costs of the petition.