The High Court has ruled that the creation of offices of advisors to the President and the appointment of 21 individuals to those positions were unconstitutional and violated relevant public service laws.
In its judgment delivered on Thursday, January 22, 2026, Justice Bahati Mwamuye declared the appointments null and void from the outset, stating that they had no legal effect. The ruling further quashed all decisions connected to the establishment of the offices and the subsequent appointments.
Justice Mwamuye held that the process through which the offices were created and filled failed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements governing public appointments, including oversight by the Public Service Commission.
“A Declaration be and is hereby issued that the appointments of the 21 Interested Parties to the said unconstitutional offices were and are null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Constitution.”
High Court ruling
Justice Mwamuye further issued an order of certiorari, quashing the decisions to create the impugned Offices of Advisors to the President as well as the subsequent decisions appointing individuals to those positions.
The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the first and second respondents, their agents, or anyone acting under their authority from recognising, facilitating, or effecting any payments to the affected individuals arising from the unconstitutional appointments.
In a far-reaching directive, the judge issued a structural interdict ordering the Public Service Commission (PSC) to conduct and complete, within 90 days, a comprehensive audit of all offices established within the public service for the Executive Office of the President since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, with particular focus on offices created since August 2022.
PSC was further directed to initiate the lawful abolition of any offices found to have been established unconstitutionally or unlawfully and to file a progress report with the court within 120 days from the date of the judgment.
Also Read: Full List of President William Ruto’s 15 Advisors and Their Specialties
In a statement following the ruling, the Katiba Institute, which had filed the petition, welcomed the decision, stating that the court had reaffirmed the limits of executive authority.
“The High Court has allowed our petition in a judgment declaring the creation and staffing of the Offices of Advisors to the President unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed that executive power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the Public Service Commission framework, and in line with the values of transparency, merit, fiscal responsibility, and public participation.” part of the statement reads.
Ruto advisors
Since assuming office in September 2022, President William Ruto has significantly expanded the Executive Office of the President by appointing more than 21 publicly known advisors across various sectors.
The appointments, many of which were made in late 2024 and early 2025, brought on board legal experts, economists, political allies, and former senior state officials.
At the centre of the administration’s “Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda” was the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), tasked with providing strategic guidance on fiscal policy and agribusiness.
The council is chaired by economist David Ndii, appointed in October 2022, and included figures such as former Trade Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria, who later resigned, former Principal Secretary Edward Kisiang’ani, Augustine Cheruiyot, Nancy Laibuni, and Mohammed Hassan.
The advisory structure also extends into governance, legal affairs, and national security. Senior appointments included Kennedy Ogeto as Senior Legal Advisor, Prof. Makau Mutua as Senior Advisor of Constitutional Affairs, and Silvester Kasuku, Joe Ager, and Adams Oloo in governance and strategy roles.
Security-related appointments featured former Defence Cabinet Secretary Monica Juma, former Inspector General Joseph Boinnet, and Ali Mahat Somane, alongside advisors focusing on women’s rights, economic empowerment, and the creative economy. Jaoko Oburu was in April 2025 appointed as Special Advisor on Economic Empowerment.
Petition
Katiba Institute first moved to court in May 2025, filing a constitutional petition challenging what it termed the President’s unilateral creation and staffing of more than 20 advisory offices without proper legal authority.
The institute argued that the appointments bypassed constitutional safeguards, undermined institutional checks and balances, and imposed an unjustified financial burden on taxpayers.
Also Read: Meet Jaoko Oburu, Raila’s Nephew Serving as Ruto’s Special Advisor
The High Court On May 28, 2025, certified the matter as urgent and directed that the petition be served and responses filed within strict timelines.
Subsequent hearings culminated in the January 22 ruling, which effectively dissolves the advisory offices and invalidates all actions taken under them.
Why court found the offices unconstitutional
The court found that the creation of the advisory offices was unconstitutional on several grounds. First, Justice Mwamuye ruled the President failed to act on a valid and independent PSC recommendation, as required under Article 132(4)(a) of the Constitution. The court held that the President could not unilaterally establish the offices without the PSC’s formal involvement.
The judge further ruled that the process did not comply with Sections 27 and 30 of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017, nor Regulation 27 of the PSC Regulations, 2020.
“Non-compliance with Regulation 27 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020, specifically the failure of the Public Service Commission to determine the number of advisors needed.”
At the same time, the court found that the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) was not involved in assessing the financial implications of the offices, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements.
Justice Mwamuye in the ruling said that the establishment of the offices was undertaken without public participation, violating Articles 10 and 201(a) of the Constitution.
Finally, the court ruled that the process violated the values and principles of public service under Article 232 of the Constitution, including transparency, fair competition, and merit, and amounted to an imprudent use of public funds contrary to Article 201(d).
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
