Case Explained: BOARDROOM TO COURTROOM: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AS THE CRIME IT IS.  – Legal Perspective

Workplace sexual harassment is an abuse of power that violates bodily autonomy, dignity, and equality. Across sectors, young professionals, junior staff, interns, and those employed within the informal sector endure workplace sexual harassment in silence. Many never report, and those who do find their complaints are processed as human resources issues rather than criminal matters. This institutional separation between corporate discipline and criminal accountability is a core gap that must be addressed. 

The Employment Act 2007 requires employers to adopt sexual harassment policies and establishes internal complaint mechanisms for addressing such issues. While this framework is important, it largely frames harassment as a workplace compliance issue. By contrast, Kenya’s broader legal framework, including the Sexual Offences Act 2006 and the Constitution, recognizes that violations of bodily autonomy, coercion, and sexual exploitation are criminal. Section 23 of the Sexual Offences Act 2006 specifically creates the offence of sexual harassment where a person in a position of authority or holding a public office persistently makes unwanted sexual advances or requests that are unwelcome. The problem, therefore, is not the absence of legislation but the failure to activate criminal processes when these legal elements are present. 

The John Chebochok case illustrates this institutional disconnect. John Chebochok was exposed in a widely reported BBC investigative documentary for sexual exploitation of women workers on tea plantations. Despite this, he was cleared to stand for election as a director of the Toror Tea Factory under the Kenya Tea Development Agency. The High Court in Kericho recently found Chebokok unfit to hold public office due to the allegations. However, his exposure and professional consequences stemmed largely from a civil process that could not clearly spell out legal penalties for sexual exploitation and harassment. 

This is a pattern across sectors. Recently, the Law Society of Kenya witnessed a surge in sexual harassment complaints involving senior lawyers preying on junior advocates, pupils, and interns. Sadly, most of these cases remain contained within professional disciplinary systems rather than being prosecuted as criminal matters. 

The tragedy is that survivors carry the burden of navigating two systems if they wish to pursue justice, dealing with both employer processes and police reporting. Add this to the reality that reporting to the police can be intimidating and retraumatizing. Many survivors fear retaliation, dismissal, blacklisting, and public shaming. The imbalance of power between employer and employee makes criminal reporting risky without institutional support.  

How then do we close the gap without imposing new burdens on survivors? First, employers’ internal disciplinary mechanisms must be strengthened to include clear referral pathways. Employers should inform complainants of their right to pursue criminal remedies and provide access to legal aid to support informed decision-making. Second, complainants and witnesses must be protected from retaliation, including dismissal, demotion, contract non-renewal, or blacklisting. Third, organizations should bear a legal duty to preserve evidence and cooperate fully with investigators, and refrain from interfering or facilitating settlement agreements that obstruct justice.  

As a long-term intervention, the Ministry of Labour, Social Security, and Services should consider a mandatory statutory reporting duty for employers where credible allegations disclose conduct that meets criminal thresholds, giving due consideration to survivor safety and agency. 

Ending workplace sexual harassment requires dismantling the artificial wall between corporate governance and criminal justice. Employers cannot function as parallel justice systems. At the same time, the state cannot rely on traumatized individuals to carry the burden of activating prosecution alone. The system must be designed to carry them from complaint to protection to prosecution without sacrificing their livelihood or safety. When abuse of power in the workplace crosses into criminal conduct, it should not stop at the boardroom door. 

Gaudence Were is Amnesty International Kenya Equality and Anti-Discrimination Campaign Officer and writes in her personal capacity.