Ruto’s advisors barred from office as Appeal Court upholds High Court ruling

The Court of Appeal on Wednesday declined to stay the High Court decision that declared the office of the President’s advisors unconstitutional.

The decision followed an application by the Attorney General seeking to suspend the effect of the High Court judgment while challenging it at the appellate level

“Upon consideration of the application, we decline to issue an interim order staying execution of the High Court's judgment pending our ruling,” the three-judge bench stated in a ruling delivered under a certificate of urgency.

The High Court had previously found that the creation of advisory offices for President William Ruto and the appointments of 21 individuals to these offices were unconstitutional.

The court ruled that these appointments were made contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and relevant public service laws, and therefore held that the appointments were null and void ab initio—having no legal effect from the outset.

In its judgment, the High Court quashed all decisions relating to the creation of the advisory offices and the appointments of the individuals.

The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, including the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), and anyone acting under their authority, from recognising, facilitating, or effecting any payments or benefits to the appointees arising from these offices.

Furthermore, the court directed the PSC to conduct a comprehensive audit of all offices established within the Executive Office of the President since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, with particular attention to offices created after August 2022.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye, delivering the High Court ruling on January 22, 2026, noted that the creation of the advisory offices through a non-competitive process undermined the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and efficiency in public service.

“The impugned conduct of creating a parallel, unregulated and perhaps even unnecessary advisory structure through an opaque, non-competitive and irregular process offends the very heart of the constitutional ethos of creating a transparent, accountable and efficient public service,” he observed.

The case arose from petitions filed by the Katiba Institute and lawyer Vincent Lempaa Suyianka, who argued that the absence of a clear legal framework regulating presidential advisers had created a loophole enabling unconstitutional appointments.

They contended that the advisory offices had operated outside established public service structures and without legislative or regulatory backing, raising concerns about accountability, governance, and public expenditure.

With the Court of Appeal now declining the stay, Ruto’s advisors remain barred from carrying out their functions, and any decisions or payments associated with these offices cannot legally be recognised.

The appellate court’s ruling means that the lower court’s orders continue to have full effect until the appeal is heard and determined.