ADVERT 
ADVERThttps://youtu.be/Sny2O4mVqxU?feature=sharedThe County Secretary cannot credibly threaten civil servants with suspension for political involvement while appearing on public platforms alongside senior county officials whose own political ambitions and campaign activities are increasingly conspicuous.
There is something profoundly contradictory about the latest political neutrality lecture delivered by Siaya County Secretary Elizabeth Adongo at Nyenye-Misori Dispensary. While taking part in what should have been a celebration of improved healthcare infrastructure following the commissioning of a KSh31 million maternity and outpatient facility supported by M-PESA Foundation, Adongo chose the occasion to issue a stern warning to county employees against engaging in partisan politics ahead of the 2027 General Election.
Her message was unmistakable: civil servants who venture into politics risk suspension or termination, and, in her own ominous words, “we are coming for you in the coming weeks.”
The question, however, is not whether public servants should maintain political neutrality. They absolutely should. The Constitution, the Political Parties Act and the applicable public service laws provide sufficient safeguards against the politicisation of public institutions.
The real question is whether Adongo appreciates that the credibility of administrative authority rests not merely on the ability to threaten junior employees but on the willingness to apply the law consistently, impartially and without fear or favour.
ADVERTThe Hypocrisy Of Selective Enforcement
The circumstances surrounding Adongo’s announcement are particularly curious.
She made the declaration from a public platform shared with senior officials of the very administration she serves, several of whom have openly expressed political ambitions and are associated with the emerging political contest ahead of 2027.
Among those present were Finance CECM CPA Dan Okoth, Agriculture CECM Willis Okoth, Trade CECM Christine Jenipher Akinyi, Lands CECM Neto Adhola, Governance CECM Joseph Rading and Tourism CECM Nicholas Kut Ochogo, alongside several chief officers.
This presents an uncomfortable administrative and ethical question.
If the objective is to safeguard the political neutrality of the county public service, where does the responsibility of enforcement begin and end? Does it begin with the junior officer in a village dispensary, a clerk in a county office or a driver in the public works department, while senior officials operating within the political establishment are subjected to a different standard of scrutiny?
The public deserves clarity.
It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that every individual expressing political interest automatically violates the law. Equally, it would be administratively indefensible to threaten subordinate employees while ignoring credible questions about the political conduct of senior officials.
The law cannot become a convenient instrument for disciplining political inconveniences while offering administrative protection to politically influential individuals.
An Internal Memo Is Not A Political Rally
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Adongo’s intervention is the choice of venue and manner of communication.
The County Secretary is not a political mobiliser, campaign spokesperson or master of ceremonies whose effectiveness is measured by the applause generated at public functions. She occupies a critical administrative office whose authority derives from law, institutional discipline and the capacity to coordinate the county executive and public service.
If the problem is that county employees are increasingly abandoning their professional responsibilities to participate in partisan political activities, the remedy is hardly complicated.
An appropriately worded internal circular, clearly identifying prohibited conduct, applicable statutory provisions, reporting mechanisms and disciplinary procedures, would have been sufficient.
Departmental heads could then be instructed to communicate the directive to their respective officers, with appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms put in place.
That is how serious public administration works.
There is little administrative sophistication in turning an internal human resource management issue into a public spectacle. Indeed, threatening employees from a political-adjacent public platform risks creating the impression that the exercise is less about institutional discipline and more about political intimidation.
A County Secretary should understand the difference between exercising administrative authority and advertising the possession of it.
The Law Must Be Applied With Precision
Adongo’s reference to the Political Parties Act is not without foundation. Section 12 prohibits public officers from engaging in political activities that compromise, or appear to compromise, the political neutrality of their offices, or publicly declaring support for or opposition to political parties and candidates, subject to the statutory exceptions.
The Conflict of Interest Act, 2025, also contains provisions on political neutrality. However, Section 25(1) is specifically framed around the conduct of appointed public officers in the performance of their duties and expressly provides exceptions for Cabinet Secretaries and members of County Executive Committees.
It is therefore important that the County Secretary communicates the law accurately rather than presenting different statutory provisions as though they impose identical obligations on every category of public officer.
Furthermore, Article 236 of the Constitution protects public officers against dismissal, demotion or disciplinary action without due process of law.
The administration cannot simply announce that employees will be suspended or terminated and imagine that the announcement itself constitutes a lawful disciplinary process.
Every case must be investigated, the applicable law identified, the affected officer afforded an opportunity to respond and the appropriate disciplinary authority allowed to discharge its mandate.
There is a difference between enforcing the law and frightening employees with the consequences of an alleged violation.
The Ghost Of The Ogutu Administration
Adongo’s public pronouncement also invites comparisons with her predecessor, Joseph Ogutu, whose tenure was often associated with a more measured and calculating approach to county administration.
Ogutu was arguably a shrewder administrator in the management of the executive’s internal political and administrative dynamics. Nevertheless, the administration under which he served was not immune to persistent questions about internal discipline, coordination and the effective exercise of administrative authority.
Adongo now faces an equally consequential test.
She must demonstrate that the office of County Secretary is more than an administrative title occupied by an official who occasionally issues stern instructions to subordinate employees.
The County Governments Act establishes the County Secretary as the head of the county public service, secretary to the County Executive Committee and a central figure in coordinating executive administration.
This is a position of considerable institutional responsibility.
It requires strategic judgement, administrative courage, institutional independence and the ability to ensure that the entire county establishment operates within the law.
It is not enough to threaten lower-ranking officers. The real test is whether the County Secretary can insist on discipline throughout the executive hierarchy, including where politically influential individuals are involved.
Who Really Commands The County Administration?
There is a more fundamental institutional question emerging from this episode: how seriously is the office of County Secretary regarded within the pecking order of the Nyalore administration?
The office is constitutionally and statutorily positioned to provide administrative coordination and leadership over the county public service. Yet its effectiveness ultimately depends on whether its authority is respected across the executive establishment.
A County Secretary who can threaten junior employees but cannot demonstrate consistent administrative discipline across the wider establishment risks diminishing the very office she occupies.
This is not an argument for confrontation between Adongo and Governor James Orengo. Neither is it an invitation to undermine the Governor’s political leadership. Rather, it is a reminder that a functional county administration requires clearly defined boundaries between political leadership and professional public service management.
The Governor is entitled to pursue his political ambitions within the law. His executive team must similarly observe applicable legal and ethical obligations. The County Secretary, meanwhile, has an obligation to safeguard the integrity and professionalism of the public service.
These responsibilities are complementary, not interchangeable.
The Nyalore Administration Must Practise What It Preaches
Governor Orengo’s declaration at Nyenye-Misori that political intimidation will not deter his efforts to popularise the Linda Democracy Party (LDP) is a political position he is entitled to articulate within the law.
But the administration cannot simultaneously celebrate political mobilisation at the top and threaten political participation at the bottom without explaining the applicable legal distinctions.
The distinction between political leadership and professional public service is fundamental. It must be respected by everyone, not selectively invoked when convenient.
Indeed, the most effective way for Adongo to establish her administrative credentials would be to issue a comprehensive and legally accurate directive, apply it impartially, and demonstrate that no officer enjoys immunity because of proximity to political power.
Siaya does not need a County Secretary who excels at issuing threats from public platforms. It needs one who can quietly, competently and decisively restore administrative discipline, enforce accountability and protect the professionalism of the county public service.
The question is not whether Adongo has the authority to demand political neutrality. She does.
The question is whether she possesses the institutional courage to demand it consistently, including from those who occupy the highest corridors of the administration.
A serious administrator does not merely announce that she is coming for errant employees. She demonstrates, through consistent and lawful action, that nobody is beyond the reach of administrative accountability.
