Too many questions over police hiring exercise
Opinion
By
Editorial
| May 15, 2026
Fifty-four police recruits, among them 18 pregnant women, have been expelled from Kiganjo Police Training College, where they have been since December 2025. Their expulsion has not only raised eyebrows but also sparked national debate. The other recruits were dismissed for various reasons: 10 were found to have criminal records, 18 were accused of presenting forged academic certificates during recruitment, and 2 reportedly used fake identification documents.
The National Police Service quickly explained that no recruit conceived while in college, and that standard tests conducted three months after recruitment detected the pregnancies. That explanation raises more questions than answers.
The National Police Service Commission recruitment advertisement states that female candidates must not be pregnant at recruitment or during the entire training period. The real question, therefore, is not whether the pregnancies occurred at Kiganjo, but how 18 pregnant women were cleared to join Kiganjo. Do the police conduct medical and pregnancy tests during their recruitment exercises? If so, why does it take months to discover that the recruits are pregnant? A pregnancy can be detected between four and six weeks after conception, and if pregnancy tests were conducted, a good number of the 18 pregnant women would have been turned away early enough. Early screening would have spared the public the cost of training these recruits.
The same logic applies to the other dismissals. The police are the principal custodians of criminal records. How then did 10 recruits with criminal pasts pass through a vetting process administered by the very institution that maintains those records? How did fake academic certificates and false identity documents survive scrutiny during recruitment considering that the government is the custodian of these records? Either the screening was deliberately ignored, or someone looked the other way.
Either way, the procedure that was supposed to be airtight clearly was not. Coincidences of this magnitude do not happen when supervision holds.
READ MORE
Afreximbank bets on $10bn crisis fund, gold bank to bolster African sovereignty
Africa-France summit ends with push to overhaul key trade rules
Ecobank, AGRA partner to boost agricultural financing
Kenya's infrastructure push drives demand for heavy machinery
Kenya targets North African startups in regional innovation push
French firms target Kenya housing sector after Africa summit
Lamu rising digital economy through youth skills training
Construction sector adjusts to clinker levy on industry rebound
Security concerns evolve as Kenya embraces technology, urban expansion
There is also the question of personal responsibility. The National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) has raised concern that where recruitment criteria and consequences are not clearly defined, publicly communicated, consistently applied, and constitutionally tested, affected individuals may perceive administrative decisions as arbitrary or discriminatory. That concern, while valid, should not override accountability. Recruiters who might have failed in their duty must face consequences.
Senator Samson Cherargei has argued that pregnancy is not an offence and has called for the affected recruits to be granted maternity leave and allowed to resume training after delivery. That is a reasonable position. These women passed competitive interviews, earned their places, and deserve re-admission.
There is a need for investigation to establish why the screening process fell short. Those found culpable must be punished.