High Court Decision Reshapes Presidential Governance Structure

The High Court of Kenya has declared unconstitutional the creation of President William Ruto’s advisory offices and voided the appointments of the 21 individuals serving in those roles. The ruling found that the executive acted outside constitutional and statutory frameworks when establishing the advisory team, bypassing required procedures involving key oversight bodies. As a result, the court quashed the creation of the offices and the decisions appointing advisers, and barred recognition or payment of salaries and benefits linked to those positions. The judgment represents a significant check on executive authority and may prompt a broader review of presidential office structures.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled that the advisory offices were established in violation of mandatory constitutional procedures, including the role of the Public Service Commission and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission. The court cited multiple breaches of constitutional requirements of transparency, merit and public participation, noting that the process lacked open and competitive selection. The ruling emphasised that the executive cannot create parallel advisory structures without adhering to established public service protocols.

The nullification affects a range of advisory bodies, from economic and climate change councils to food security and fiscal policy roles, many of which included high‑profile appointees. Legal experts say the decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional governance and limiting executive overreach. The court also issued directives for the Public Service Commission to conduct a comprehensive audit of offices created within the Executive Office of the President since 2010, with unconstitutional offices to be abolished.

For investors and policy watchers, the ruling may signal increased legal scrutiny of executive actions with economic implications. Clarity on constitutional limits could influence confidence in governance stability and institutional checks. Analysts suggest future executive initiatives will require tighter legal grounding to withstand judicial review.