Murkomen’s Statement Not Only Endorses Corruption In The Police Force But Officially Acknowledges It
The shocking statement attributed to Cabinet Secretary Murkomen that “it is not corruption when police demand fuel money from Kenyans who need their help” is not merely careless—it is a public endorsement of corruption. It lays bare the rot at the heart of Kenya Kwanza’s governance model, one where impunity is baptized as policy, and illegality is dressed as service.
For a senior government official to normalize police extortion is to spit in the faces of hardworking Kenyans who pay taxes precisely so that security services are funded. Every year, Parliament allocates billions of shillings to the Ministry of Interior, which includes police operations and fuel budgets. Police fuel is already covered. Asking citizens to “top up” is extortion.
Murkomen’s words undermine the very spirit of Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya on leadership and integrity. Public officers must uphold the rule of law, not bend it to justify corruption. His pronouncement signals that under Ruto’s regime, the Constitution is nothing more than a footnote—a tool to quote selectively, then discard when inconvenient.
The Penal Code (Cap 63, Laws of Kenya) criminalizes the solicitation of benefits by public officials under Section 39. For a police officer to ask for “fuel money” is a direct violation of this provision. For a Cabinet Secretary to say it is “not corruption” is an attempt to whitewash criminality, and that makes Murkomen complicit in encouraging crime.
Murkomen’s words directly contravene the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003, which defines corruption broadly, including “abuse of office” and “extortion.” A police officer demanding money to do their duty falls squarely under this. The CS has therefore spoken against the law he swore to uphold. This is a direct abuse of his oath of office.
Further, Article 10 of the Constitution outlines national values such as transparency, accountability, and good governance. By excusing police bribery, Murkomen undermines these values. He is effectively saying corruption is part of governance. This cannot be allowed to stand. The Law Society of Kenya must urgently review his conduct and strike him from the Roll of Advocates.
Kenya’s police service is infamous for corruption. Transparency International reports consistently rank it as the most bribery-prone institution. Instead of reforming the force, Murkomen has added gasoline to the fire. His statement will embolden rogue officers to fleece Kenyans more aggressively, hiding behind the shield of “fuel money” legitimacy.
This pronouncement is dangerous because it weaponizes poverty. In a country where millions live on less than Sh200 a day, being forced to bribe police for “fuel” is not only extortion—it is state-sanctioned theft. It makes security access a privilege for the rich while abandoning the poor to crime and lawlessness.
Police officers already misuse fuel allocations. Auditor General reports have highlighted ghost fuel claims, inflated receipts, and missing vehicles in police stations. Instead of addressing this theft of public funds, Murkomen is attempting to shift the burden to ordinary citizens. This is systemic corruption masquerading as necessity.
In effect, Murkomen is declaring that the taxes Kenyans pay are useless. If citizens must finance police movement personally, what then is the purpose of taxation? This is double taxation through extortion, and it reeks of contempt for citizens. The CS is mocking taxpayers, telling them their money fuels corruption, not police cars.
Under Article 244 of the Constitution, the National Police Service is required to be professional, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the people. How can professionalism exist where officers are reduced to beggars demanding fuel cash? How can accountability stand when the minister normalizes extortion? This is constitutional betrayal.
Murkomen’s defense of extortion is a breach of public trust. Article 73 of the Constitution demands that leaders exercise authority as a public trust, bringing honor and dignity to the office. His comments have instead brought shame, ridicule, and dishonor. He has dragged the office of the Cabinet Secretary into the gutte