High Court Declares Creation of 21 Presidential Advisory Offices Unconstitutional
In a major setback to the structure of President William Ruto’s administration, the High Court has ruled that the establishment of 21 advisory offices attached to the Presidency, along with the appointment of individuals to those positions, violated the Constitution of Kenya and public-service laws.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye held that the process used to create these offices and appoint the advisers failed to comply with mandatory constitutional procedures, including meaningful public participation and oversight by the Public Service Commission (PSC). As a result, the court declared both the creation of the offices and all 21 appointments null and void ab initio (from the beginning).
The decision arises from a petition filed by the Katiba Institute together with advocate Vincent Lampaa Suyiaka, who challenged the offices on grounds that they were established without following due process. The court rejected the government’s application for a 30-day stay of execution, stating there were no sufficient grounds to suspend the judgment.
Key Orders Issued by the Court;
All 21 presidential advisory offices are abolished with immediate effect.
The 21 advisers are removed from office forthwith.
The Public Service Commission and any other relevant body are permanently restrained from processing salaries, allowances, benefits, or any payments related to these positions.
A comprehensive audit of all offices created in the Executive since 2022 must be conducted to confirm compliance with the Constitution and public-service laws; a progress report must be filed in court within 120 days.
The offices in question included high-profile units such as the Presidential Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of National Security Advisory, the Office for Women’s Rights, the Office for Climate Change Transformation, and several others intended to support policy implementation across government priorities.
The ruling arrives at a time when the administration is already facing multiple legal challenges to its governance and administrative reforms. Legal analysts note that the decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that new public offices and appointments adhere strictly to constitutional requirements, particularly those involving public funds and accountability.
