Interior CS links Muturi’s security withdrawal to routine scale-down
Murkomen said that since Muturi no longer holds a Cabinet position, his security could have been reduced as part of regular reviews, but promised to seek clarification from the Inspector General.
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has dismissed claims by former Public Service CS Justin Muturi that his security was withdrawn for political reasons, stating it could be due to standard procedures following his exit from government.
Muturi had earlier claimed that his relationship with the government had worsened, suggesting this was the reason behind the withdrawal of his security.
But Murkomen maintained that such decisions are handled by the Inspector General and are not influenced by political considerations.
As the back-and-forth between the two former colleagues continues, Murkomen stood firm that security matters should not be dragged into political debates.
He added that further inquiries would be made to clarify Muturi’s concerns regarding his security status.
At the same time, Murkomen raised serious concerns over Muturi’s alleged possession of classified documents, warning that such actions could lead to legal consequences.
Murkomen said that since Muturi no longer holds a Cabinet position, his security could have been reduced as part of regular reviews, but promised to seek clarification from the Inspector General.
“It could be a scale down since he’s no longer a CS. I’ll seek clarification from the IG. We don’t play politics in security matters. It’s a matter for the IG level unless he’s escalating it to reach my level,” said the Interior CS.
The remarks followed Muturi’s interview on NTV, where he accused President William Ruto of overseeing corrupt dealings and claimed to possess supporting documents.
He stated that the evidence was stored in softcopy format, prompting questions about how he retained such records after leaving office.
Murkomen questioned the legality and ethics of Muturi’s claims, noting that as a former Attorney General, he had sworn an oath to uphold confidentiality while handling government documents.
“The AG at the time said he had kept the documents on email. In another country, he could have been arrested because the principle of how to handle government documents is known,” Murkomen said.
He went on to criticise the suggestion that Muturi had been keeping copies of government files for two years under the pretext of fighting corruption.
“The Attorney General handles classified documents, all of them, almost stamped top secret. The objective is that these documents are government documents. For one of them to say, from the time he joined office, he was photocopying documents, it’s nauseating because they are not personal documents,” he added.
Murkomen insisted that retaining such documents after leaving office goes against standard procedure and suggested that Muturi’s actions raised serious concerns.
“You swore to confidentiality and could not be having them for two years because you’re dealing with corruption. That’s not true; he’s not the first AG to be fired,” said the CS.
To further support his point, Murkomen compared the issue to the 2016 controversy involving former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was accused of using a personal email account to conduct official business.
“In the US, if those documents are in your email, that’s a serious national security. You remember what happened to Hillary Clinton; one of the biggest problems was that she was communicating with her personal email on national security issues,” he said.