Politics

Trans Nzoia Governor Natembeya Demands Security Reinstatement, Alleges Unlawful Withdrawal

KITALE – Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya has publicly accused the National Police Service (NPS) of unlawfully withdrawing his security detail, an action he claims poses a direct threat to his safety and undermines his official duties.

ALSO READ: No US Ambassador for Kenya Yet; Acting Envoy Holds Full Diplomatic Powers

In a strongly-worded statement posted on his official X account on Thursday, Governor Natembeya asserted that his security team was pulled without prior notice, a court order, or any formal explanation.

Today, my security detail was withdrawn without any notice or lawful justification.
This action violates the National Police Service Act, Sections 30 and 31, which obligate the Inspector-General to provide security to State officers whose roles and public engagements expose them…— George Natembeya (@GeorgeNatembeya) November 26, 2025

The governor framed the move as a clear violation of the National Police Service Act, specifically citing Sections 30 and 31. These sections obligate the Inspector-General of Police to provide security for State officers whose roles and public engagements expose them to heightened security risk.

“There is no court order, no disciplinary communication, and no official explanation for this decision,” Natembeya stated. “This action not only endangers my safety but also interferes with the smooth execution of county duties.”

The first-term governor, a former senior provincial administrator, has been a prominent and often outspoken figure in western Kenya politics. His statement suggests the withdrawal is an arbitrary act that fails to meet constitutional standards of fairness and professionalism.

“I call upon the National Police Service to immediately reinstate my security and adhere to the constitutional standards of fairness, professionalism, and respect for the law,” his statement concluded.

As of press time, the National Police Service and the Office of the Inspector-General had not issued an official public response to the governor’s allegations. The situation has drawn significant attention, raising questions about the protocols governing the security of sitting governors and the potential politicization of state security resources.