Turf wars at anti-counterfeit agency as legal chief interdicted

A senior legal official at the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) has found himself at odds with the authority for blatant disregard for laws governing conflict of interest and abuse of office among public officials.

Johnstone Otieno Adera, the director for legal services and corporation secretary at ACA, was interdicted on February 10, 2026.

The agency accused him of engaging in “a persistent pattern of conduct and communication that appears to constitute gross misconduct… and breach of constitutional and statutory standards.”

In the letter interdicting Adera, which has since become public after it was filed in court, ACA accuses him of using his private legal practice to sabotage the authority’s operations

It alleges that he has weaponised his private firm to intimidate management and colleagues at ACA while harassing and intimidating investors. The 60-day suspension was supposed to pave the way for an independent investigation. 

Adera has, however, refuted the claims and challenged the suspension in court. On February 16, he filed a case at the High Court in Machakos, seeking to have the court lift the interdiction.

He argues that the human resource manual and code of conduct that the authority relied on to suspend him were not approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC).

ACA claims that Adera’s legal firm, Adera and Kenyatta Advocates, has been representing other parties in courts in cases involving the authority, while Adera represented ACA, pointing to a conflict of interest. 

ACA further accused him of using abusive and insulting language towards colleagues, which is highlighted in several emails, sections of which are replicated in the interdiction letter.

He is accused of using demeaning words on his colleagues, but also an incident in November last year, where an altercation with two colleagues led to what Adera said was an exchange of harsh words. 

The authority noted that these actions were part of a scheme to intimidate ACA and favour private clients through the abuse of State power while fighting proxy commercial wars under the guise of public service.

ACA cites several instances where Adera has been weaponising his private practice – Adera and Kenyatta Advocates – against the authority, its staff, but also firms working with ACA in combating illicit trade or those suspected of perpetrating the vice.

“In Petition E469/2025, you allegedly appeared for ACA while your alleged partner, Kenyatta Odiwuor, appeared for the interested party, concealing the alleged relationship and thereby undermining perceived impartiality,” reads the ACA letter authored by its Executive Director Robi King’a to Adera, citing an instance that it said pointed to conflict of interest.

“Court receipt RB-0081162 for the interested party in the same matter was allegedly marked ‘paid for: Adera and Kenyatta’, evidencing Adera and Kenyatta firm’s financial involvement.”

“You and your alleged legal partners used the authority as a’conduit’ to fight proxy commercial wars for (a local silicone manufacturing company) against its competitor.”

The letter that ACA sent to Adera also claims that the Business Registration Service records show he is the founding partner and beneficial owner of ‘Adera and Kenyatta Company Advocates’ at a time when he was serving as a full-time public officer.

While the court papers do not point to Adera receiving a nonpractice allowance, some public officials receive allowances to dissuade them from private practice and ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that they are fully focused on public interest cases. 

Further, ACA claims in the letter that the “court receipt for a Memorandum of Appearance for the interested party in petition E469/2025 was allegedly endorsed ‘paid for: Adera and Kenyatta Advocates’, indicating a direct financial link”.

The authority also accused Adera of abuse of office. In one case that has been cited in the interdiction letter, Adera, together with other officials, allegedly used his power as a State officer to harass and intimidate foreign investors. 

“On July 11, 2025, you (together with two other ACA officials), allegedly visited business premises and ‘threatened, harassed and intimidated’ a director, portraying a ‘graphic picture’ of surrender of passports and denial of bail,” reads the letter.

“On or about July 20, 2025, while accusing the Executive Director of ‘actual malice and intimidation’ for a Saturday email, you were yourself allegedly involved in evening visits to suspects during which threats were issued.” 

These incidents, ACA said, are in contravention of sections of the Employment Act (2007), the Public Officer Ethics Act (2003), which require government officials to maintain professionalism and not abuse their office through intimidation and improper threats.

Adera is also accused of using insulting language towards colleagues, including one instance where he dismisses management’s memo as “vexatious”, referred to another colleague as “vacuous” and in another group email referred to colleagues’ actions as “stupidity that must end”.

In yet another email to colleagues, he said: “I will treat your email as balderdash, and I will advise (a colleague) on what the law is by the close of the day”. 

In another instance, he told a colleague that he had “exposed your ignorance, and I repeat – ignorance” and also called him “petty and primitive”.

“These allegations are said to offend the ACA HR Manual section 10.10; Leadership and Integrity Act  2012, section 16; Conflict of Interest Act 2025 (general conflict of interest provision,” reads the letter.

The authority also claims that the actions are in contravention of the Employment Act (2007) and the Public Officer Ethics Act (2003).

ACA also noted that Adera has been weaponising his private practice against the authority and its staff. 

“The allegations and matters presently under consideration disclose prima facie grounds that amount to gross misconduct and warrant administrative action. Accordingly, and without prejudice to the outcome of any ongoing or contemplated investigation and related proceedings, you are hereby interdicted from the performance of your duties with immediate effect for a period of six months, in accordance with the cited provisions, pending finalisation of your case,” said ACA in the letter.

It further said that during the interdiction period, he would be entitled to half of his basic salary in line with the ACA Human Resource Manual and the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act. It also requires him to respond to the allegations before a disciplinary committee established under the ACA HR Manual and Section 69 of the PSC Act.

Adera has, however, protested the process and filed a suit at the high court in which he argues that the ACA HR manual was not approved by the Public Service Commission. 

“The impugned manual (Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual) is unconstitutional and illegal and does not form part of the contract of service with the respondent (ACA) on account of being contrary to the Constitution and Statute,” he said. 

“I never consented to the said manual prior to the manual being developed and eventually sent out to staff by email as mandatory required under… the Employment Act…. that of the gravest concern is that the said manual was revised and approved by the State Corporations Advisory Committee, allegedly on April 14, 2021… and not the Public Service Commission.”

He further noted that since August 27, 2010, the power to approve human resource instruments within the Public Service is vested in PSC, which “has the sole mandate to approve any manual for use in the public service”. The courts, he said, have in “times without number” ruled that SCAC has no mandate to approve human resource instruments for use in the public service. 

He also argues that claims of his professional misconduct can only be determined by the Advocates’ Disciplinary Tribunal and, by extension, the Chief Justice and judges of superior courts.

“Allegations of professional misconduct within the ambit of the Advocates Act can only be investigated either by the Law Society of Kenya or the Advocates Complaints Commission upon a proper complaint,” said Adera.

He acknowledges that he had “serious differences” with two of his colleagues and “in the process, harsh words were exchanged”. 

In the documents filed before the court, Adera, however, said the accusations of use of abusive language against his colleagues had been amicably resolved at a meeting on November 17, 2025, convened by ACA and communication was made to all members of staff of the authority on December 18, 2025.

However, the interdiction letter cites further incidents of abusive language after November 17, including on November 28, 2025 and December 1, 2025.

It is not the first time that Adera has been suspended. In June 2015, alongside three other ACA officials, he was given a three-month compulsory leave that was to allow for investigations.

The authority then said it had received numerous complaints from the general public and manufacturers, who own intellectual property rights, about their misconduct. The four, however, challenged the move in court and won, with the court declaring the letters sending them on compulsory leave null and void. 

In 2020, Adera took ACA’s executive director and its board to court after the board made a decision to interdict him and issue him with notice to show cause.

The court ruled it was improper for the ACA to have interdicted Adera and issued him a show cause letter at the same time. It said that the two actions should have been separated and sequenced as per the ACA’s human resource manual. 

Adera was questioned by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) in January this year in relation to a Sh40.3 million bribery case.

EACC claimed that Adera received the money between 2019-2020 and 2024-2025 financial years in bribes and kickbacks from businesses that have allegedly been trading in counterfeit goods in the country.