KDF Act: See the rule that kept Major Peter Mugure on payroll for nearly seven years

Most jobs end the moment an employee is charged with a serious crime.

The military doesn't work that way.

For nearly seven years, Peter Mugure sat in custody as one of Kenya's most closely watched murder cases wound its way through the courts.

Yet legally, he was still a Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) officer.

That meant he remained subject to military regulations - including one little-known rule that allows an officer facing criminal proceedings to continue receiving part of their salary until their case is determined.

It's a provision rooted in one of the oldest principles of justice: being accused is not the same as being guilty.

Why the KDF didn't sack him in 2019

When Mugure was arrested in 2019 over the disappearance and subsequent murder of his estranged wife, Joyce Syombua, and their two children, many assumed his military career had ended.

Legally, it hadn't.

The Kenya Defence Forces Act, 2012 and the regulations made under it distinguish between an officer who has been charged and one who has been convicted.

An arrest or criminal charge does not automatically terminate military service.

Instead, an officer generally remains in service until the due legal and administrative processes are completed, whether through conviction, dismissal, resignation or retirement.

That legal distinction exists to protect a principle that applies to every Kenyan: every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The regulation that protected part of his salary

The provision that has sparked public interest is found in the Kenya Defence Forces (General) Regulations, 2017.

The regulations state:

"...the minimum monthly rate of pay which an officer or service member shall be allowed to remain in receipt of shall be not less than one-half of the monthly rate of pay."

In simple terms, where an officer's salary is restricted while criminal or disciplinary proceedings are pending, military regulations generally ensure they continue receiving at least half of their monthly salary unless another lawful provision applies.

The rule is not unique to murder cases. It applies broadly within the military justice system whenever the relevant circumstances arise.

How that applied to Maj Peter Mugure

That is why Mugure remained on the KDF payroll throughout his trial.

As long as his criminal case was before the courts, he had not been found guilty.

His status as a serving officer therefore remained unchanged, and the military's employment regulations continued to govern his pay and conditions of service.

Although the Kenya Defence Forces has never publicly disclosed his exact salary, a Major of his rank is understood to earn more than Sh120,000 per month, depending on experience, allowances and other benefits.

Based on the military's half-pay provision, Mugure would ordinarily have continued receiving a portion of that salary while awaiting the outcome of his trial.

What if he had been found not guilty?

This is perhaps the most fascinating part of the law.

Had the High Court acquitted Mugure after nearly seven years in custody, the legal picture would have looked very different.

Because he would still have been regarded as a serving officer, questions would have arisen over the withheld portion of his salary and whether he should be reinstated to duty, subject to the KDF's administrative procedures and applicable military laws.

Based on estimates of a Major's monthly earnings, the withheld salary over nearly seven years could have run into more than KSh4 million, although the exact amount would depend on his actual pay, allowances and the military's final administrative determination.

In other words, the law is designed so that an officer who is ultimately cleared is not automatically punished financially for a conviction that never happened.

The judgment

That legal protection came to an end this week.

The High Court convicted Mugure of murdering his wife and their two children before sentencing him to life imprisonment.

With the conviction, the presumption of innocence that had protected his employment status throughout the trial no longer applied.

The judgment now triggers the Kenya Defence Forces' administrative processes regarding his continued service.

Mugure has indicated that he intends to appeal the conviction.

Should an appellate court overturn the judgment in future, any question of reinstatement would still have to be considered under the KDF Act and military regulations. It would not happen automatically.

Is the rule important?

At first glance, the idea of a murder suspect remaining on the government payroll may appear difficult to understand.

But military law isn't designed around public opinion - it is designed around due process.

If every officer were dismissed immediately after being charged, someone later found innocent would have lost both their career and years of income without ever being convicted of a crime.

The half-pay rule attempts to strike a balance.

It protects public funds by withholding part of an officer's salary while also protecting the constitutional principle that a criminal charge, no matter how serious, is not proof of guilt.

For Peter Mugure, that distinction lasted almost seven years.

It ended only when the High Court delivered its verdict, closing one of Kenya's most high-profile murder trials - and, in the process, bringing an end to his status as a serving officer under Kenya's military law.