Deputy Inspector General of Police Eliud Lagat has dismissed claims that he resigned from his role, clarifying that he only took an 18-day administrative leave amid ongoing investigations into the death of Albert Omondi Ojwang.

In court documents filed in response to a case seeking his removal from office, Lagat insisted he had neither stepped down nor appointed a successor, and that any suggestion of such was not grounded in law.

“On June 16, 2025, I formally applied for temporary administrative leave from office in light of the ongoing investigations surrounding the unfortunate death of Albert Omondi Ojwang, which had attracted significant public concern and speculation,” he said in court papers, attaching a copy of the leave application and approval letter.

Lagat is listed as an interested party in the case, which questions his continued stay in office following the high-profile investigation.

He maintains that the leave was voluntary, in line with public accountability, institutional integrity, and the need to uphold public confidence in the police service.

He firmly denied any wrongdoing, stating, “I reiterate that there was no misconduct on my part. No disciplinary process has been initiated against me by the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) or any other competent body.”

According to him, the leave should not be interpreted as resignation or abandonment of office as outlined in Articles 245 and 251 of the Constitution or Section 20 of the National Police Service Act.

“Therefore, the Petitioner’s assertion that he resigned by implication has no basis in law,” Lagat said in his affidavit. He argues that interpreting his leave as resignation is not supported by law, and labels such a view as speculative and outside the bounds of established legal and policy frameworks.

He further contends that his statement to the public was simply meant to clarify his temporary absence and assure the public of continuity in police leadership.

He defended the temporary role of Deputy Inspector General Gilbert Masengeli, saying that it does not contravene Article 245(3) of the Constitution, which outlines the command structure but does not restrict internal delegation during such absences.

Lagat argued that the petitioner has failed to show any real or perceived threat to rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 47, or 50 of the Constitution, and therefore does not justify the Court’s intervention under Article 23.

“The orders sought, if granted, would paralyse the effective functioning of the Kenya Police Service, especially in the absence of any credible evidence that I or the 2nd Interested Party have acted unlawfully or unconstitutionally,” reads his affidavit.

He concluded that the petition is ill-intentioned, speculative, and an abuse of the court process.