NAIROBI, Kenya — The government has finally appointed the Intelligence Service Complaints Board, more than six years after a court ordered its establishment, marking a major step towards strengthening oversight and accountability within Kenya’s intelligence sector.
The appointment was made by Interior and National Administration Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen through a Gazette Notice dated August 21, 2026.
The development follows a prolonged legal battle over the government’s failure to implement a 2019 court order directing the establishment and operationalisation of the board.
Court ordered board within 180 days
The matter dates back to a judgment delivered on December 11, 2019, by Justice Reuben Nyakundi in Malindi.
The court ordered the establishment and operationalisation of the Intelligence Service Complaints Board within 180 days.
However, according to Katiba Institute, the respondents failed to comply with the directive for more than six years.
The delay eventually prompted the organisation to initiate contempt of court proceedings in November 2025, seeking to have those responsible cited and punished for disobeying the judgment and decree.
The contempt application is scheduled for hearing on October 5, 2026.
Murkomen appoints board
The latest Gazette Notice has now resulted in the appointment of the board’s chairperson and members.
Katiba Institute welcomed the appointments as an important development towards implementing the court’s orders and fulfilling the constitutional requirement for oversight of Kenya’s intelligence sector.
The organisation’s litigation counsel, Kevin Walumbe, had been involved in the contempt proceedings filed over the government’s failure to establish the board.
The appointment comes less than two months before the contempt case is scheduled for hearing.
Why the board matters
The Intelligence Service Complaints Board is intended to provide an avenue through which complaints concerning intelligence services can be handled and subjected to independent oversight.
Its establishment is particularly significant given the constitutional requirement that state security organs operate within the law and respect fundamental rights.
The board is expected to provide an institutional mechanism for addressing complaints and strengthening accountability within the intelligence sector.
However, Katiba Institute cautioned that appointment alone does not complete the process.
The organisation said the board’s effectiveness would ultimately depend on its operationalisation, independence and ability to discharge its complaints and oversight mandate in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
Six-year delay raises accountability questions
The appointment also brings renewed attention to the prolonged period during which the 2019 court directive remained unimplemented.
The court had given the government 180 days to establish and operationalise the board, but the deadline passed without the required institution becoming fully functional.
Katiba Institute’s decision to pursue contempt proceedings in 2025 was therefore aimed at compelling compliance with the court order.
The October 5 hearing could now provide an opportunity for the court to assess the extent to which the government has complied with the original judgment, particularly whether the newly appointed board has been fully operationalised.
The latest development could also test whether the government will move beyond appointing members to provide the institution with the resources, independence and administrative framework required for it to perform its statutory and constitutional functions.
Oversight remains central to intelligence services
The establishment of a complaints mechanism is significant in a sector where much of the work of intelligence agencies is conducted confidentially.
Effective oversight is intended to ensure that national security operations remain subject to constitutional safeguards while protecting the legitimate secrecy required for intelligence work.
The appointment of the board therefore represents an important institutional development, although its practical impact will depend on how independently and effectively it operates once fully constituted.
The organisation maintains that operationalisation and effective functioning of the board will be necessary to fully satisfy the court’s directive and ensure meaningful accountability within Kenya’s intelligence sector.
