NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 31 – The High Court upheld the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) directive on the rate of stipend for healthcare interns, dismissing five petitions that sought to overturn SRC’s decision on grounds of discrimination and alleged overreach.
The consolidated petitions, filed by healthcare interns and related professional bodies, argued that SRC’s decision to set standard stipend rates was unconstitutional, claiming it created disparities between medical and non-medical healthcare interns and disregarded previously established remuneration structures.
The court’s ruling, however, reaffirms SRC’s authority to determine remuneration rates for public service interns based on budgetary constraints and fiscal sustainability.
The petitions, filed following SRC’s directive of 13 March 2024, alleged that SRC had failed to consult stakeholders adequately, ignored prior stipend levels, and created disparities among healthcare interns.
Petitioners sought the court’s recognition of all interns as ‘public officers’ under Article 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which would entitle them to equitable treatment across the public service.
They argued that the current stipend arrangement was discriminatory under Article 27 of the Constitution.
SRC defended its decision, stating that setting remuneration, including stipends for public officers, falls squarely within its constitutional mandate. Internships are classified as training periods, rather than employment, with stipends adjusted according to available funds.
SRC maintained that adjustments to intern stipends are key to ensuring fiscal responsibility amid limited government resources, highlighting the Ministry of Health’s own financial constraints, including an additional funding request of Ksh 9.6 billion to meet budgetary needs.
Further, SRC argued that differences in stipend levels among healthcare interns are justifiable and based on economic realities, rather than discriminatory intent.
The High Court found that SRC acted within its constitutional authority, and its actions were justified by budgetary realities and the unique nature of internship training programmes.
Discrimination, as defined under Article 27 of the Constitution, applies only when individuals in comparable circumstances are treated differently without reasonable justification.
The court ruled that SRC’s stipend directives, given the financial context, were lawful and not discriminatory.
This ruling confirms SRC’s mandate to determine fair and fiscally sustainable stipend levels for healthcare interns, balancing equity with budgetary constraints.
The decision allows SRC to continue its mission to promote prudent remuneration practices across Kenya’s public service.
Source: capitalfm
