Ombudsman Report on Corruption in Kenya Prisons Service
Ombudsman Report on Corruption in Kenya Prisons Service and Calls for Immediate Dismissals and Refers Officers and Bribe Givers to EACC and DCI.
Ombudsman Spots Corruption Network in Kenya Prisons Service, Calls for Immediate Dismissals and Refers Officers and Bribe Givers to EACC and DCI
The Commission on Administrative Justice (Office of the Ombudsman) has uncovered extensive and systemic corruption within the State Department for Correctional Services, the Kenya Prisons Service. This follows a detailed review of the Quarter Two Performance Contracting (PC) returns for the FY 2025/2026. The Commission monitors public service delivery under the Performance Contracting Framework pursuant to Article 59(2)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 8 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, 2011, including oversight of the Resolution of Public Complaints Indicator.
Under the Fifteenth Edition of the Performance Contracting Reporting Guidelines for FY 2025/2026, public institutions are required to report on the resolution of public complaints and the processing of Access to Information requests in accordance with Sections 4 and 8 of the Access to Information Act, 2016.
Upon review of the Performance Contracting returns submitted by the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government, State Department for Correctional Services, Kenya Prisons Service, the Commission notes that out of seventeen complaints reported, twelve are corruption-related and involve the solicitation and receipt of money in exchange for recruitment, deployment, or other official favours. Several of the implicated officers acknowledged receipt of the monies, refunded part or the whole of the amounts, or made express admissions during internal inquiries.
Summary of Admitted Corruption Cases
| No. | Name of Officer / Person | Name of Complainants | Nature of Corrupt Act | Amount Involved (Kshs) | Admission / Acknowledgment | Refund Status | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CIP S.K and SGT S.N | S.W.K | Recruitment facilitation | 600,000 | Acknowledged through an agreement | Partial refund Paid 500,000/=; Balance of 100,000/= outstanding | On-going |
| 2 | PC B.K | M.K.N | Recruitment assistance | 870,000 | Admitted by committing to pay the money in two months' time | Repayment agreed | On-going |
| 3 | CPL M.M | F.O.O | Recruitment promise | 450,000 | Admitted by refunding 200,000 and committed to refunding the balance of 250,000 | Partial refund | Ongoing |
| 4 | SSP R.K.K | W.C Officer from Nairobi EACC | Recruitment promise | 800,000 | Admitted by refunding 700,000 and subsequently refunding 100,000 | Fully refunded | Closed |
| 5 | CIP J.K | CPL L.R | Recruitment promise | 800,000 | Admitted by refunding 400,000; failed to refund balance | Partial refund | On-going |
| 6 | CPL W.O | H.N | Recruitment promise | 600,000 | Admitted by refunding 450,000 and committing to repay balance | Balance of 150,000 committed by 8 Jan 2026 | On-going |
| 7 | S.O | L.W.N | Recruitment promise | 990,000 | Admitted by refunding 360,000 and committing to repay balance | Balance of 630,000 committed by 18 Jan 2026 | On-going |
| 8 | I.M | D.N.W S.W.G | Recruitment promise | 371,150 | Admitted and committed to refund when summoned | Committed to repay by 28 Jan 2026 | On-going |
Summary of Corruption Related Cases Not Admitted
| No. | Name of Officer / Person | Name of Complainants | Nature of Corrupt Act | Amount Involved (Kshs) | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PC I.C | CPL D.O | The complainant stated that he lent PC I.C money accruing to 134,000 but she never refunded the money | 134,000 | Both parties were summoned and PC I.C agreed through an agreement to be paying 3,000/= monthly |
| 2 | Dr. I. | Prison Health Officer PSTC, J.M. O | The complainant stated that he gave Dr. I Kshs 495,000 on the promise that he will help the complainant’s cousin secure a job during recruitment | 495,000 | Both parties were summoned and the matter was agreed to be investigated further |
| 3 | CPL F.K | Z.T | The complainant stated that CPL F.K obtained money from them 3 million, promising to help four boys secure a job in KDF | 3 million | Matter referred to DCI |
| 4 | CPL F.M | PC S.M | The complainant stated that CPL F.M obtained a sum of 800,000 from him promising to help his wife secure a job in KDF | 800,000 | Matter referred to DCI |
Such conduct constitutes admission of corrupt practices within the meaning of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003, the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003, and the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016 (Cap. 79B), all of which criminalise the direct or indirect solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of a financial or other advantage as an inducement or reward for the improper performance of a public function.
The Commission has therefore written to the relevant public institutions and officers to take necessary actions as follows;
i. Principal Secretary, State Department for Correctional Services
The Commission observes that the State Department lacks the statutory authority to conclusively determine or administratively resolve corruption-related complaints. Nevertheless, where public officers have admitted to corrupt conduct, refunded illicitly obtained monies, or otherwise acknowledged wrongdoing, such actions constitute gross misconduct and a fundamental breach of public trust. This warrants summary dismissal with immediate effect, independent of any ongoing or future criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the Principal Secretary, State Department for Correctional Services, to take immediate and appropriate administrative action, including the summary dismissal of the concerned officers, based on their admissions and in strict compliance with due process requirements. The Commission underscores that the PS must be guided by Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Fair Administrative
Action Act, 2015, which guarantee affected officers written reasons for any adverse administrative decision, timely notification of such decision, and clear information regarding their right to internal review or appeal. Adherence to these procedural safeguards is essential to uphold administrative fairness, transparency, and legality.
The PS is required to submit a status report to the Commission within sixty days.
ii. Chairperson of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
The Commission notes that the investigation and prosecution of corruption and economic crimes fall within the mandate of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission pursuant to Article 79 of the Constitution and Section 11(1)(d) and (e) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2011. Some officers admitted to having received monies and committed to full refunds through negotiated arrangements; however, such arrangements do not remove criminal or administrative liability. Recognising that this conduct constitutes corruption under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003, the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003, and the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016 (Cap. 79B) and in line with inter-agency cooperation under Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution, the Commission has submitted the names of the officers for EACC’s action and requests a written status report within sixty days.
With respect to the officers and persons who did not record admissions, the Commission recommends that investigations be carried out expeditiously and that, where culpability is established, appropriate administrative, disciplinary, and criminal action be taken in accordance with the law without delay.
iii. Inspector General of Police
The Commission emphasises that corruption is a bilateral offence. In this regard, the Commission has drawn the attention to Section 5 of the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016 (Cap. 79B), which criminalises the act of offering, promising, or giving a bribe. Persons who paid or offered money in furtherance of the corrupt acts complained of are therefore equally culpable and ought to be subjected to appropriate investigation and action in accordance with the law. The Commission has therefore, written to the Inspector General of Police and has referred the names of individuals who offered or paid bribes to the Directorate of Criminal Investigation under the IG’s supervision for urgent investigation.
The IG is required to submit a status report to the Commission within sixty days.
Follow Ombudsman News