By Reporter
Members of Parliament have questioned plans to establish a regulatory board under the proposed National Forensic Science Bill, 2026, warning that the new structure could create unnecessary bureaucracy and increase the financial burden on the taxpayer.
The Departmental Committee on Administration and Internal Security also raised concerns over who should recruit forensic scientists, how private laboratories will be regulated and whether the proposed National Forensic Science Laboratory will have adequate resources to discharge its mandate.
The issues emerged during consultations between the committee and the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration at Lake Naivasha Resort in Nakuru County on Thursday.
Homa Bay Town MP Hon. Peter Kaluma questioned why the Government Chemist could not be structured as an independent office, similar to constitutional and statutory offices such as the Auditor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“You have independent offices, and then you just structure the body downwards based on the mandate the office is given,” Hon. Kaluma said.
He questioned the rationale for establishing a board, arguing that Parliament was already grappling with the cost of maintaining numerous State boards and authorities.
“I don’t see the need for that board,” he said, asking officials to explain why the Government Chemist could not operate as a singular office with a clearly defined mandate and accountability structure.
The MP also challenged the proposal to place recruitment of forensic personnel under the Public Service Commission, saying specialised institutions were better placed to determine the expertise they required.
“Do we know the level of expertise, and therefore the type of person with what qualification and experience to employ?” Hon. Kaluma asked.
He cited previous disputes involving the Public Service Commission and the Office of the Attorney-General over the recruitment of specialised personnel, arguing that institutions with highly technical mandates should have greater control over their staffing.
Deputy Chief State Counsel in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Kepha Onyiso acknowledged the concern.
“Ideally, I prefer the organisation to do that recruitment because there are a lot of parameters that the PSC might not be aware of,” Mr Onyiso said.
He explained that the question of recruitment powers had been the subject of litigation involving the PSC and the Attorney-General’s Office, with the matter having progressed through the courts.
Mr Onyiso said the State Department would continue discussions with the committee on the proposed governance structure.
The committee chairman, Narok West MP Gabriel Tongoyo, focused on the financial implications of creating the proposed National Forensic Science Regulatory Board alongside the National Forensic Science Laboratory.
Hon. Tongoyo asked officials to disclose the amount currently collected by the Government Chemist through fees and whether the revenue could support the proposed regulatory structure.
“You are going to have board members and staff. They will need funding,” Hon. Tongoyo said.
He wanted officials to explain how much was currently collected annually, the projected revenue under the new system and whether such collections could reduce the burden on the Exchequer.
Government Chemist William Kailo Munyoki said the department currently collects about Sh16 million annually against a budget of approximately Sh490 million.
He said the Government Chemist could collect significantly more if all services were charged, but cautioned that the issue required careful consideration because many of its services are linked to criminal investigations.
“If we charge everybody who comes to the lab, we can get even Sh400 million,” Mr Munyoki said, adding that such charges would still need to be considered alongside the Government’s obligation to provide essential forensic services.
He said the Government Chemist also had a development allocation of about Sh40 million this financial year for a project whose total cost was estimated at Sh129 million.
Mr Munyoki explained that the proposed Bill was designed to separate the regulatory function from the laboratory function.
Under the proposal, the National Forensic Science Regulatory Board would register, license and regulate forensic science providers, including private laboratories, while the National Forensic Science Laboratory would undertake forensic analysis under the leadership of the Government Chemist.
“The board is not managing Government Chemist. That board is only to provide advice and also regulate, register and licence forensic science providers,” he said.
Mr Munyoki said the Government Chemist would be a member of the regulatory board while retaining responsibility for the day-to-day management of the National Forensic Science Laboratory.
He said the distinction was necessary because the current Government Chemist Department and the Office of the Government Chemist often create confusion over whether the term refers to the institution or its head.
Under the proposed arrangement, existing Government Chemist staff would transition to the new National Forensic Science Laboratory while retaining their employment under the Public Service Commission.
Mr Munyoki said this would limit the financial implications of the proposed legislation, with the major new expenditure expected to arise from establishing the regulatory board and the office of a registrar.
Teso North MP Edward Oku Kaunya also asked officials to examine the financial and budgetary implications of the proposed legislation before it is finalised.
“If you have not looked at that aspect, whether there is financial or budgetary implication or not, you need to,” Hon. Kaunya said.
The committee also questioned how the proposed regulatory system would interact with private forensic practitioners.
Kaluma asked whether the Government Chemist would have an oversight role over other forensic science providers while allowing private laboratories to continue operating.
Mr Munyoki said the proposed regulatory board would regulate both public and private forensic laboratories by setting standards, registering practitioners and licensing facilities.
The board would have powers to suspend or revoke licences where providers failed to meet the required standards, he said.
Another contentious issue was payment for forensic services linked to criminal investigations.
Daniel Boit, a Government Chemist official, warned that charging for every forensic examination could undermine access to justice, particularly for poor complainants.
He cited cases involving suspected narcotics and sexual offences where forensic examination is necessary before prosecution.
“If we were to put the burden on the station to pay, there are chances that this cost might be directly or indirectly taken to the complainant,” Mr Boit said.
He said members of the public had, during public participation on the Bill, called for the Government to finance forensic services rather than pass the cost to citizens.
“The best practice, from our experience, would be increased budgetary allocation to our services, so that this service can be offered to the citizens of this country,” he said.
Mr Kaluma, however, said the Bill could distinguish between public criminal investigations and services where private forensic providers could operate.
He suggested that legislation could give greater evidentiary weight to certain Government Chemist reports while allowing private forensic laboratories to provide services in appropriate circumstances.
The committee also sought information on international models that informed the proposed Kenyan legislation.
Mr Munyoki said officials had studied forensic systems in South Africa, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
He said Tanzania had transformed its Government Chemist into an authority with a fully-fledged board and a broader mandate, including control over certain chemical imports.
Rwanda, he said, had established a Forensic Science Institute bringing together different players in the sector, while Uganda operates a Government Laboratory alongside forensic facilities operated by the police.
Mr Munyoki also cited Mauritius and Malaysia as countries with more developed forensic science systems.
Asked by Tongoyo which country Parliament should consider for benchmarking, Mr Munyoki pointed to Tanzania while also noting lessons from the United Kingdom.
Mr Munyoki said the Bill would also expand Kenya’s forensic capacity by introducing anti-doping analysis, an area he said had been lacking despite Kenya’s international prominence in athletics.
He said the reforms were partly intended to address backlogs and improve the quality and speed of forensic analysis.
Mr Kaluma also asked whether the State Department had sufficiently consulted the Attorney-General’s Office and the Kenya Law Reform Commission before bringing the Bill to Parliament.
Mr Munyoki said the drafting process had involved officers from the Kenya Law Reform Commission and the Attorney-General’s Office through a technical committee formed during the police reforms process.
He said different government agencies had tabled their respective draft Bills for discussion and harmonisation.
Mr Onyiso said the State Department had already undertaken public participation and would work with the committee to move the Bill forward.
“We have done public participation, and with this consultation with the committee, we want it to come to you as soon as possible,” he said.
