The enactment of the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025 represents a fundamental shift in Kenya’s legal and ethical architecture. Assented to on 30 July 2025 and brought into force on 19 August 2025, the Act repeals the Public Officer Ethics Act and establishes a consolidated statutory framework to regulate and manage conflicts of interest within the public sector. While the Act is directed primarily at public officers, its implications for legal practitioners are significant, given the frequency with which advocates interact with public institutions and officers in the discharge of their professional duties.

At its core, the Act broadens the definition of conflict of interest to encompass any situation where a public officer’s private interests may improperly influence the performance of their official duties. It imposes mandatory obligations on public officers to declare income, assets and liabilities upon assumption of office, every two years during their tenure, and within thirty days of ceasing to hold office. The Act further proscribes public officers from engaging in business with their respective offices, from acquiring interests in entities benefitting from public contracts, and from accepting complimentary treatment such as travel or hospitality without appropriate disclosure.

The enforcement regime under the Act is robust and deliberately punitive. Public officers in breach face fines of up to Kshs.4 million or imprisonment for up to ten years, with mandatory restitutionary fines equal to twice the value of the benefit improperly obtained. Corporate entities implicated in contraventions are exposed to penalties of up to Kshs.10 million. These sanctions reflect an unequivocal legislative intent to criminalise conduct previously treated with administrative leniency under the repealed statute.

For legal practitioners, the enactment of the Act introduces a heightened duty of diligence. Advocates must now be astute in client intake processes, particularly where prospective clients are public officers or entities contracting with the State. A failure to ascertain whether a transaction or relationship offends the statutory restrictions could expose both the client and the legal adviser to risk. It is incumbent upon practitioners to embed conflict-check systems that interrogate the status of clients under the Act and to advise, with precision, on the limitations imposed by law.

Equally, law firms must appreciate that their role extends beyond transactional advice to active guardianship of compliance. Where public officers are clients, practitioners should counsel them on the statutory obligation to file declarations within the prescribed timelines and to disclose any form of complimentary treatment. Instructing parties who contract with public entities should be cautioned on the statutory prohibitions against trading with public officers, and firms must ensure that transactions are structured in a manner consistent with the law.

Comparative jurisprudence offers useful perspective. Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act adopts a predominantly administrative model, where contraventions attract modest financial penalties and corrective action, enforced by an Ethics Commissioner. The United Kingdom relies on ministerial codes and disclosure mechanisms rather than criminal sanction. South Africa’s Public Administration Management Act, 2014 and Nigeria’s Code of Conduct regime prohibit public servants from doing business with the State, though enforcement remains uneven. Against this backdrop, Kenya’s Act stands out for its punitive provisions and its deliberate criminalisation of conduct that elsewhere might attract administrative remedies. For legal practitioners, this comparative lens underscores the elevated stakes in Kenya’s regime and the urgency of robust compliance mechanisms.

The implications are therefore twofold. First, there is a practical obligation on advocates to strengthen internal systems, through enhanced conflict checks, compliance audits, and advisory protocols, that safeguard against exposure. Second, there is a professional obligation on the legal fraternity collectively, and the Law Society of Kenya in particular, to incorporate the requirements of the Act into continuing professional development and ethical guidance. Advocates must be capacitated to advise clients confidently while maintaining the independence and probity demanded of the profession.

In a wider sense, the Act also places upon lawyers a broader public duty. The legal profession, as a central pillar of the rule of law, cannot be passive in the face of systemic corruption and conflicts of interest. By upholding the spirit as well as the letter of the statute, practitioners reinforce the integrity of public institutions and the confidence of the citizenry in the administration of justice.

Ultimately, the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025 signals a new ethical era. It transforms conflict-of-interest regulation from symbolic declarations into binding legal obligations backed by criminal sanction. For legal practitioners, it is both a challenge and an opportunity: a challenge because the risk of liability is real and the demands of diligence are greater; an opportunity because it positions the profession as a key custodian of integrity in public life. If embraced with rigour, the Act will not only reshape professional practice but also strengthen Kenya’s democratic foundations by ensuring that public duty is discharged with impartiality, transparency and fidelity to the law.

This article was published in the Business Daily on 17 September 2025 and can be accessed here.