Author: user user

The High Court has quashed a decision by the State’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) to cancel a pharmaceutical company’s licenses for the manufacture and distribution of 40 lifesaving medicines on claims of counterfeiting, warning that the move risked disrupting access to essential medicines in Kenya.

The court faulted the regulator for acting unlawfully and procedurally unfairly in cancelling the permits of a Kenyan firm, Galaxy Pharmaceuticals, which is locked in a Sh1.4 billion dispute with a former partner from India, India’s Prism Life Sciences Limited, over the sale of pharmaceutical products used in the treatment of various chronic illnesses, including heart diseases, atherosclerosis, and diabetes mellitus.

The court found that PPB went beyond its mandate by intervening in a commercial and trademark dispute while failing to follow due process.

‘The decision to cancel the registration of the products was marred with irregularity because the respondent ventured into the realm of the commercial courts in determining the trademarks dispute, which issue was substantially still in contention for determination at the commercial courts,’ the court said.

The ruling lifts a regulatory cloud that had effectively blocked Galaxy from trading in the affected medicines, even after laboratory tests confirmed the products met required standards.

The legal dispute started after Prism Life Sciences lodged a commercial suit seeking damages of $11. 5 million (Sh1.4 billion) from Galaxy and the PPB as compensation for profits and sales of two years covering 2023 and 2024. Galaxy filed a judicial review case against PPB.

It denied any liability and wanted damages, if any, to be apportioned to the board over alleged failure to discharge its duty as the market watchdog.

The case of Prism related to alleged breach of trust and conspiracy between Galaxy and PPB to deprive it of the ownership of its pharmaceutical products and brands.

The board quarantined the drugs following the brand infringement complaints but later cleared them for compliance, only to proceed with cancellation without giving adequate reasons or a fair hearing.

‘The respondent’s conduct was procedurally unfair, irrational and unlawful,’ the court said while ruling on the judicial review case, adding that the regulator failed to accord the company a proper opportunity to be heard before taking action.

The court further observed that the board relied on shifting and contradictory grounds to justify the cancellation, undermining the integrity of the decision-making process.

At the heart of the dispute is a long-running commercial fallout between Galaxy and Prism over rights to manufacture and distribute dozens of pharmaceutical products used to treat chronic conditions.

The row, already before the Commercial Court, involves claims of trademark ownership, alleged counterfeiting, and breach of distribution agreements.

Despite the parallel proceedings, the board moved to cancel Galaxy’s licences, citing alleged misrepresentation in the registration process.

However, the High Court ruled that such issues fell within the jurisdiction of commercial courts and not a regulatory agency.

The judge warned that the board’s actions created a ‘regulatory stalemate’ by barring Galaxy from importing its own products while allowing third parties to deal in the same medicines.

This, the court said, posed a real risk to the supply chain of essential drugs, with potential consequences for patients relying on the medicines.

Court filings show that the affected products are used to manage conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses, making continuity of supply critical.

Galaxy had argued that the cancellation threatened its operations, jobs, and ability to meet financial obligations, while also disrupting supply to hospitals and pharmacies.

The company told the court that orders had been cancelled and patients risked missing critical medication due to the regulatory impasse.

The Board, on its part, defended its decision, saying it acted within the law and after allowing the company to respond.

It maintained that the registrations were obtained through misrepresentation and that cancellation was necessary to protect public health.

Prism also backed the regulator, alleging that Galaxy had fraudulently acquired rights to the products and distributed substandard drugs.

But the court declined to delve into the merits of those claims, stressing that judicial review is limited to assessing the legality and fairness of administrative actions.

‘The role of this court is not to determine ownership disputes but to examine the decision-making process,’ the judge stated.

She stressed that the constitutional requirement for fair administrative action includes the right to clear reasons and a hearing before adverse decisions are taken.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept; it is now embedded in the everyday mechanics of work. From recruitment and performance management to decision-making and productivity tracking, AI is reshaping how organisations operate and how employees experience the workplace.

At the fourth Human Resource Management forum hosted earlier this month by Liaison Group, HR leaders from across the country examined the evolving workplace and its demands on both employers and employees. At the heart of the discussions was a key question: is AI making the workplace better?

Hiring has traditionally been one of the most human-centric functions in any organisation. Yet today, many companies are relying on AI tools to screen CVs, rank candidates and even conduct initial interviews.

According to Joan Wainaina, Group Head of People and Culture at Liaison Group, this does not necessarily erode the human element.

‘I wouldn’t describe it as dehumanising the recruitment process. If anything, AI helps streamline the initial screening stage, which can significantly shorten hiring timelines and reduce uncertainty for candidates,’ she says.

‘It acts as a filtering tool to identify individuals who meet the core requirements. The more nuanced stages of interviews, such as assessments and onboarding, remain human-led, ensuring that the personal element of recruitment is preserved.’

Still, the reliance on algorithms raises concerns about whether organisations might be missing out on unconventional talent. Ms Wainaina acknowledges this risk but insists that the outcome largely depends on how AI is used.

‘Overall, the quality of hires remains strong. AI is only as effective as the criteria and data it is given, so organisations play a key role in defining what ‘good’ looks like. When configured thoughtfully, it can enhance consistency and efficiency. However, it is important to continuously review and refine these inputs to ensure that strong, non-traditional candidates are not inadvertently overlooked.’

Consequently, one of the most debated aspects of AI in recruitment is whether efficiency comes at the cost of fairness and candidate experience. Algorithms can process thousands of applications in seconds, but they can also replicate existing biases kept in historical data.

‘Ideally, there shouldn’t be significant trade-offs if AI is implemented responsibly. Fairness, bias mitigation, and candidate experience should remain guided by human oversight,’ Ms Wainaina says.

Even with AI streamlining recruitment, finding the right talent is a persistent challenge.

‘One of the key challenges is finding individuals with the right mindset, particularly adaptability, a willingness to learn, and the ability to translate theory into practical application. In today’s fast-evolving environment, continuous upskilling is critical. Younger talent also places high value on purpose, flexibility, and growth opportunities, which organisations must actively address to remain competitive,’ Ms Wainaina notes.

Additionally, the recruitment challenges are not just an HR issue, they have direct implications for business performance.

‘These challenges have a tangible impact on business performance. Hiring processes can be time-sensitive, especially for experienced roles where notice periods, buyouts, and competitive compensation come into play. Additionally, when key employees leave, there can be a temporary disruption in client relationships and service delivery, which may lead to short-term productivity gaps and increased operational strain,’ Ms Wainaina explains.

She points to a recent example within her industry: ‘Earlier this year, we experienced significant movement within the industry, with several highly skilled service managers leaving due to competitive salary pressures. Replacing this level of talent took close to three months, and during this time teams had to collaborate closely to maintain service standards. While the business remained resilient, it required deliberate effort and agility to manage the transition effectively.’

A generational reset

If AI is changing how work is done, generational shifts are changing why and where it is done.

Paul Kasimu, CEO of C-Suites Impact Consulting, argues that the workplace is undergoing a transformation rooted in context.

‘The first thing is the context, and it is everything. We are in the fifth industrial revolution. We have just come from the digital era, to the hyper-personalisation,’ he says.

This new era is defined by what he calls the ‘WWW of the workplace.’

‘Work has changed and the workplace is no longer the same. If you look at the five generations in the workplace, the baby boomers, Gen X, millennials, and now the Gen Z’s and Alpha is coming in. Different styles of how they are perceiving work. You can’t handle a millennial the same way you handle a Gen Z,’ Mr Kasimu says.

Leadership, too, is evolving. ‘The leader of today is a coach. You sell, you don’t tell. If you don’t connect, you are left.’

This shift is closely tied to how organisations currently define roles. ‘It’s the way organisations approach how they define work. The job descriptions move away from just describing jobs to outcomes. Which is why we are seeing more flexible working. People are saying, I’m at my best at 3am, so don’t force me to come to the office at 8 to 5.’

Another visible changes in today’s workplace is the declining employee loyalty. Shorter tenures, frequent job changes and rising attrition rates are becoming the norm. Mr Kasimu sees this as both a challenge and a warning. ‘One of the key measures of a stable organisation is attrition. Attrition, the way you keep up with talent. In fact, it’s how you attract, retain a highly performing workforce,’ he says.

‘For every talent that leaves, the cost of replacement, the cost of downtime, sometimes comes to two times of the annual cost of that particular position. If you have a top talent who you can’t keep, when they leave, they emotionally take away others in the organisation,’ he adds.

AI as collaborator, not competitor

Despite fears of job displacement, most experts agree that AI is more likely to augment human work than replace it.

‘AI the bigger point is where you remove the repetitive work. AI cannot replace the human aspect of work, but it also removes the operational, sometimes manual pieces of work. What the computer did 20 years ago, is now the next level of providing machine to work with man,’ Mr Kasimu says.

‘AI is a tool that helps people work better. But remove the machine part of people, and then you’ll have AI, but you’ll still have the soul of the organisation.’

At the same time, AI is rapidly advancing. ‘AI is also learning; it has not reached a point of sophistication where it can replace human beings. We need human beings to help AI to become even better. By 2030, the number one skill that needs to be in the workforce, across, irrespective of the domain expertise, is AI,’ He says.

Another of AI’s most powerful contributions to the workplace is its ability to turn data into insight.

‘If you look at data and analytics, we are moving away from descriptive. Descriptive data are like when leave is high, overtime is high, or there’s sickness. You go to diagnostic, the why. Then predictive, if you go on like this, this is going to happen. The fourth one is prescriptive, which is the so what,’ Mr Kasimu says

AI accelerates this entire process. ‘AI will help in that iteration where it can truncate the what into the why, into the so what predictive, and therefore do this.’

The generational AI challenge

While much of the conversation around AI focuses on technology, Wycliffe Osoro, Head of HR at Swissport, argues that the real challenge is human.

‘AI is not a technology problem, it’s a generational experience problem.When organisations are introducing AI, they are not introducing one change. They’re introducing four changes at the same time because all these generations are going to interact differently with AI,’ he says.

This complexity requires what he calls ‘generational intelligence.’

‘If you go and introduce this change and not have the generational intelligence to recognise the differences between the different age groups or different generations, then you’re going to lose it,’ he warns.

Mr Osoro says that Different groups respond differently: Gen Zs prefer digital learning journeys, millennials value rapid feedback, Gen X seeks structured autonomy, while older workers bring experience and mentorship.

‘Organisations tend to have one goal, and then that goal needs to be achieved by everyone. But when there’s standardisation, it bounces off. But if you want to personalise that, then you’re going to have the refraction, and it goes into the different pathways that are there.’ Mr Osoro says.

AI also promises efficiency, but its impact on productivity is not always straightforward.

Mr Osoro introduces the concept of ‘AI anxiety pivot’ the fear among employees that they may be replaced. This fear is already shaping behaviour. ‘Nearly half of the Gen Z workers and the millennials who use AI, they use it as shadow AI,’ he says.

Yet when used openly, the gains are significant. ‘The saving of that time is what has supported to save about an average of seven and a half hours per week. That’s almost a whole working day. And that then translates to about $18,000 per employee per year in recovered productivity.’

Mr Osoro believes that the winners of AI’s success will not be those who manage people better, but those who rethink work itself.

‘They’re not going to replace humans because there’s certain things that the AI agents will not be able to do. They’ll not be able to design things like a human being would do.’ Mr Osoro says

‘When you’re using technology, it takes away that bias of knowing who is going to get that favouritism,’ he adds.

In an era where large language models of artificial intelligence are widely used and studies show a dumbing down of society whereby thinking frequently now gets offloaded to AI, it has never been more critical to champion doctoral education as a harbinger of knowledge creation and dissemination.

As we advocate enhancing doctoral education, let us find ways to fix various broken aspects of PhD and DBA programmes.

Here in Kenya, British Council and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) research shows that only 11 percent of doctoral students finish within six years.

The Commission for University Education (CUE) shows a similar figure at 13 percent. We have one of the highest PhD dropout rates in the world. It would be lazy if we merely blame financial strain as reasons for doctoral study departures.

If the student is able to fund themselves for many years and still not graduate, then there exists a systemic issue that educators must address.

Kenya holds arguably the most difficult and burdensome doctoral process in the entire world. Globally, there exist three main models in doctoral education.

First involves the North American model whereby one completes an undergraduate bachelor’s degree and then typically goes straight into PhD studies, bypassing a master’s degree entirely.

Therefore, their doctoral programmes include intensive coursework to become a subject matter expert and on how to research in one’s discipline, then a comprehensive examination, followed by the ever-dreaded dissertation that takes around five to seven years to finish the whole programme.

All the while, the doctoral candidates usually teach undergraduate classes and support faculty on research in exchange for tuition waivers or fee reductions.

Second, the European model utilises an entirely different structure. A student completes their bachelor’s degree and then proceeds on to a master’s degree. The master’s degree would usually include a thesis component, unlike most North American master’s degrees.

In Europe, a master’s degree is often a steppingstone to a doctorate. The master’s programme thesis is then usually under 15,000 words, while in Britain often 8,000 words depending on the discipline.

Then further in Europe, after the master’s, one then enters a doctoral programme where the sole focus revolves around the comprehensive dissertation.

They presume that the student is already a subject matter expert from the master’s degree and therefore doctoral programmes do not include coursework, mainly just some short seminars on how to research.

Therefore, European doctorates usually take around three years full-time. South Africa and the United Kingdom follow the European methodology for doctorates.

Third, we in Kenya have our own different and arguably tedious way. We mix the worst of all by requiring a master’s degree like in Europe and also requiring a doctorate with intensive coursework like in North America before the dissertation.

So, a Kenyan doctoral student takes an additional two years of classes more than almost any other doctorate on the planet, usually resulting in unhelpful coursework regurgitating undergraduate and master’s topics already taught instead of focusing on research or helping to solve national pain points.

Therefore, everyone studies for the exam instead of studying to understand subjects deeply as faculty try to make the class harder because of the doctoral level and ask obscure questions from content not covered in class with the excuse that doctoral students should do extemporaneous reading. Further, Kenyan master’s theses usually are required to be far longer than the European standard.

We must really examine whether forcing our students to jump through extra hoops is helping or hurting our nation. We need doctoral students solving societal problems not stuck in bureaucratic circles.

Further structural problems include vague research methods courses and non-specific research manuals forcing students to pay for help from the illicit academic writing industry.

Researchers Rosemary Mbogo, Elly Ndiao, Joash Wambua, Niceta Ireri, and Francisca Ngala published in the European Journal of Education Studies about the stunning doctoral supervisory challenges and delays in Kenya at both public and private higher education institutions in Kenya.

Beyond the structural problems with the setup, in East Africa we perpetuate a gotcha culture in Higher Education. Students must show extreme deference to supervisors who in most cases receive no disciplinary measures if they refuse to ever meet their students. So, getting a PhD turns into more about being awarded a “bureaucracy buster” certificate more than doing actual original research.

Doctoral students spend much of their time chasing supervisors and following up on vague corrections. In Britain, as an example, corrections from supervisors and invigilators must state specific pages and paragraphs for corrections, not the vague often seen in Kenya ‘make the thesis tighter’, ‘follow the research manual more’, etc.

Then academics ponder why many students turn to the academic writing industry scourge for help because faculty fail in executing their duties clearly and fairly.

Students are often blocked from conducting original research since new techniques are often frowned upon and not allowed to be world-leading because doctoral supervisors are simply unaware of the latest statistical techniques.

Then in defenses of dissertations, students are often not allowed to talk. They cannot defend and prove that they know the content. Various faculty show off to each other to insult the students’ work in classic gotcha fashion.

Researchers Rugut Kipleting and Syomwene Kisilu recommend that Kenyan universities invest in developing the skills as well as knowledge of doctoral supervisors while building in support structures for students.

Join Business Talk next week as we dissect red flags to look out for in doctoral programs, the questions to ask before selecting a university, and how to choose the right PhD program for you.