A fresh dispute has erupted between two government agencies after the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) nullified a directive issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) that had approved extra allowances for advocates in the public service.

In a circular addressed to accounting officers in all public institutions, the SRC directed that the PSC’s advisories issued on May 19 and May 21 regarding the payment of Non-Practice and Special Legal Allowances be ignored.

The commission insisted that the PSC acted without its input, breaching the Constitution.

“We bring to the attention of the public service that the circulars on payment of Nonpractice Allowance and Prosecutorial/Special Legal Allowance for Advocates in the public service. The circulars were issued without SRC’s advice, rendering them null and void,” the circular stated.

Signed by SRC Chairperson Sammy Chepkwony, the directive underscored that the PSC had failed to consult the salaries agency, which holds the exclusive authority to determine and advise on remuneration for state and public officers.

The SRC anchored its position on Section 11 of the SRC Act and Article 230 of the Constitution, which give the commission the sole mandate to set and review salaries and benefits in the public sector.

“This failure to seek SRC’s constitutionally mandated advice violates Article 230 of the constitution. Consequently, the two circulars are null and void and of no legal consequence,” reads the memo from Chepkwony.

The SRC reminded public bodies, including universities, state corporations, and constitutional commissions, that they must comply with its latest directive or face legal action.

“This circular serves as advice, pursuant to Article 230 (4)(b) of the constitution as read together with Section 11 of the SRC Act, against implementing the circulars of May 19 and May 21,” the note adds.

This directive brings to light an ongoing contest between the two institutions over who holds the authority to determine and regulate allowances in the public service.

The PSC had earlier defended its move, citing a Court of Appeal decision delivered in February 2025, which it interpreted as affirming its power to make such determinations.