NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 9 – The High Court has allowed the Attorney General to file a Preliminary Objection opposing the inclusion of President William Ruto as a respondent in a petition challenging the appointment of 21 presidential advisors.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted the Attorney General permission to file and serve the objection, which will focus exclusively on whether the President should be formally joined in the proceedings.
“The first respondent is granted leave to file and serve a Preliminary Objection limited to the question of the joinder of the first respondent, President William Ruto,” Justice Mwamuye ruled.
“The objection shall be filed and served by close of business on October 17, 2025, and the petitioner shall respond by October 31, 2025.”
The judge directed that written submissions from both parties be filed within those timelines, adding that judgment will be delivered on December 11.
The petition, filed by activist and lawyer Lempaa Suyianka through the Katiba Institute, challenges the legality of President Ruto’s appointment of 21 advisors, arguing that the move was unconstitutional, lacked transparency, and bypassed due process.
The petition also seeks to have the advisors refund all salaries and allowances paid to them since assuming office.
During the hearing, Lempaa maintained that the President was not being sued in his personal capacity, emphasizing that the case challenges the legality of the appointments, not the conduct of the Head of State.
“A Preliminary Objection can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. We have not sued the President over his personal transactions or conduct,” Lempaa stated.
In response, the Attorney General, listed as the 1st Respondent, argued that the appointments were made lawfully under Article 132(4)(a) of the Constitution, which empowers the President to establish offices within the public service upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission (PSC).
According to court documents, the AG submitted that the President acted within his constitutional mandate and that such appointments do not require parliamentary approval or public participation.
“The appointment of advisors is an internal administrative function of the Executive Office of the President and does not trigger the obligation for public participation,” the AG argued.
The Attorney General further invoked Regulation 27 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020, which provides the legal framework for appointing advisors to the President, Deputy President, and Cabinet Secretaries.
He added that the petition offends the doctrine of separation of powers by inviting the court to intrude on executive discretion vested in the President and the PSC.
The AG urged the court to dismiss the petition, terming it speculative, misconceived, and legally unsustainable.
At the same time, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has filed its own grounds of opposition, stating that the petition discloses no reasonable cause of action against it.
“The allegations in the petition do not implicate any power or function vested in the third respondent,” the SRC stated in its filing.
“The petitioner seeks no relief against the Commission, rendering its inclusion in this matter without legal basis.”
The Katiba Institute insists that the appointments were made secretly and outside the bounds of the Constitution, arguing that the President has no authority to unilaterally create and fill new public offices without parliamentary oversight or a clear legal framework.
