Antony Wamukota, the General Manager of the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (Ketraco), has recently challenged his suspension in court, marking a significant turn of events. The controversy surrounding his suspension, a consequence of an ongoing investigation into the Loiyangalani-Suswa power line project, arises not only because it was executed without affording him basic rights but also sparks further debate on legal procedures and due process.

On November 15, the board of directors at Ketraco decisively suspended Wamukota for 12 months. However, under his legal scrutiny, he alleges that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) explicitly directed this suspension, a move he considers contrary to established human resource policies and procedures.

In his court documents, Wamukota argues for an illegal and premeditated suspension influenced by external forces, specifically the EACC. He contends that Ketraco’s board intentionally circumvented its own Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, opting for what he describes as the “most distasteful decision”: a hasty, unlawful suspension.

Wamukota’s legal challenge pivots on the alleged overreach of the EACC, which he claims circumvented Ketraco’s internal processes. His focus lies in questioning this action. He maintains that despite lodging a complaint with the energy firm, they took no action and instead ceded control to the EACC during an essential board meeting.

Wamukota further underscores the role of EACC’s negative recommendations in his suspension, despite a pending constitutional petition before the High Court. He highlights that an order from the High Court had already restrained Ketraco from taking any action against him regarding the Loiyangalani-Suswa Transmission Interconnector (II) Line Project.

Advocate Dr. Moses Sikuta represents Wamukota, who raises concerns over the violation of fair administrative action. He argues that the respondents, including Ketraco, its accounting officer, and EACC, adopted unfair labor practices by suspending him without affording him an opportunity to present his side. According to him, his suspension should have been a matter for determination before Ketraco’s Human Resource & Advisory Committee, a step he alleges was bypassed.

Justice Byram Ongaya underscores the urgency of this matter by certifying it as such; therefore, Wamukota actively seeks intervention from the court: he aims to nullify his suspension and secure an immediate reinstatement—all pending a comprehensive inter partes hearing for determining his application.

Wamukota, amidst the unfolding legal battle, asserts that his right to fair administrative action suffered a violation. He underscores an urgent need for swift judicial intervention—a measure aimed at halting potential further prejudice. A Thursday hearing sets the stage for this ongoing drama: it promises additional revelations as we illuminate intricate details of the case.