NAIROBI, Kenya Jun 6 – The trustees and administrators of Kenya’s Public Service Superannuation Fund (PSSF) are seeking to be removed from an ongoing constitutional petition, arguing that they have been wrongly dragged into a legal dispute centred on healthcare financing and insurance arrangements.
In documents filed before the High Court, the Public Service Superannuation Fund and its Board of Trustees maintain that their mandate is strictly limited to managing pension, gratuity, retirement, disability and death benefits for public servants under the Public Service Superannuation Scheme (PSSS).
The trustees insist they have no involvement in the operations or financing of the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), the Social Health Authority (SHA), or other healthcare financing mechanisms challenged in the constitutional case.
They argue that the petition improperly combines issues relating to pension administration with healthcare funding systems established under separate legal frameworks.
According to the trustees, pension contributions under the PSSS are independently managed and regulated and bear no legal or operational relationship with SHA, SHIF or the Primary Healthcare Fund and Emergency, Chronic and Critical Illness Fund referenced in the petition.
The respondents further state that the petition fails to identify any specific wrongdoing attributable to the fund or its trustees.
They argue that no act, omission, policy decision or constitutional violation has been directly linked to them and that the allegations contained in the petition are broad, vague and unsupported.
The trustees also contend that the conservatory orders sought by the petitioner cannot be enforced against them because they lack authority over the healthcare financing structures at the centre of the dispute.
They are now asking the High Court to strike them out of the proceedings on grounds of misjoinder.
However, petitioner Francis Awino has opposed the application, arguing that the respondents are attempting to narrowly interpret the case in order to avoid accountability.
Awino maintains that the petition raises broader constitutional questions concerning the welfare of public servants, statutory benefits, disability protection, life insurance arrangements and fiduciary obligations owed to pension scheme members and beneficiaries.
He points to Section 6(4) of the Public Service Superannuation Scheme Act, which requires the Government to maintain a life insurance policy that includes disability cover for members of the scheme.
According to the petitioner, those statutory protections fall within the oversight responsibilities of the fund and its trustees.
Awino further argues that the respondents have failed to address concerns over whether life and disability benefits for public servants were lawfully procured, administered and supervised.
He claims the petition seeks to determine whether the entities administering the benefits possessed the necessary licences under the Insurance Act and whether statutory insurance risks were placed with properly authorised entities.
The petitioner also alleges that beneficiaries and dependants of deceased public servants continue to face delays and uncertainty in accessing death and disability benefits, issues he says directly implicate the pension administrators.
Awino accuses the trustees of failing in their fiduciary obligations to members and beneficiaries, including duties relating to lawful administration of benefits, accountability, regulatory compliance and protection of beneficiaries’ interests.
According to the petitioner, the issues raised in the case touch on constitutional rights relating to fair labour practices, social security, fair administrative action, property rights, leadership and integrity, and public finance management.
He is urging the court to dismiss the trustees’ application and retain them in the proceedings to allow full scrutiny of how statutory life and disability benefits for public servants are administered.
The High Court is now expected to determine whether the Public Service Superannuation Fund and its trustees will remain parties in the constitutional petition as the case proceeds.
