Premium
Court rules against reinstating Justin Muturi as AG, upholds Oduor’s appointment
Former Attorney-General Justin Muturi and current AG Dorcas Oduor.
The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the legality of Dorcas Oduor’s appointment as Attorney-General and the removal of her predecessor, Justin Muturi, ruling that Mr Muturi voluntarily resigned and due process was followed.
The court found that the petitioners failed to prove claims that President William Ruto unconstitutionally dismissed Mr Muturi through an Executive Order in July 2024.
The court upheld the government’s position that Mr Muturi resigned to pave the way for a Cabinet reshuffle, rendering Ms Oduor’s subsequent vetting and appointment valid. It said due process was followed in Mr Muturi's departure and Ms Oduor's appointment.
Mr Muturi's departure came amid sweeping government changes following the 2024 Gen-Z nationwide protests.
Initially, Rebecca Miano (now Tourism Cabinet Secretary) was slated to replace him, but President Ruto later nominated Ms Oduor, who was then serving as Secretary for Public Prosecutions at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
A group of seven petitioners, led by Dr Magare Gikenyi, had argued that Mr Muturi’s removal via a televised presidential address and Gazette Notice No.8440 violated constitutional safeguards under Article 132 and the Office of the Attorney-General Act, which stipulate grounds for removal (misconduct, incapacity, or incompetence).
They further alleged that Mr Muturi’s “purported resignation letter and an amended gazette notice” were forgeries meant to legitimise an illegal process.
They wanted the court to issue judicial review orders quashing the presidential press release and the Gazette Notice and any document which had an effect of removing Mr Muturi from Office of the Attorney-General and appointment of Ms Oduor.
Their case contended President Ruto employed the colonial-era “pleasure doctrine” – permitting arbitrary dismissals – which they argued has no place in Kenya's modern constitutional framework.
The petition was pegged on part of the press statement which stated that the President had “decided to dismiss with immediate effect all the Cabinet Secretaries and the Attorney-General from the Cabinet of the Republic of Kenya except the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs”.
However, the court ruled that the petitioners provided no credible evidence to counter sworn affidavits from State House, the Public Service Commission and Parliament confirming Mr Muturi’s resignation.
“The petitioner relied on the press release but there was counter evidence produced by the respondents that the first interested party (Muturi) was not removed but had in fact resigned to enable him be considered for a Cabinet portfolio,” the court observed.
In dismissing the petition, the court relied on key documents such as Mr Muturi’s resignation letter dated July 11, 2024 addressed to President Ruto and Gazette Notice No. 8440 dated July 12, 2024, which explicitly stated that the President had “accepted his resignation”.
Former Attorney-General Justin Muturi and current AG Dorcas Oduor.
The court also relied on Parliamentary records showing that Muturi testified before the Committee of Appointments on August 4, 2024, affirming he resigned voluntarily to “assist the President in reorganizing the Cabinet”.
“The petitioner’s case hinges on conjecture. A gazette notice is prima facie evidence of its contents, and no proof of forgery was tendered,” the court noted, citing Section 85 of the Evidence Act.
It emphasised that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence contradicting the resignation documents.
The court declined to interfere with Parliament’s vetting of Ms Oduor, emphasising the doctrine of separation of powers.
The National Assembly had cleared Ms Oduor after background checks by the EACC, KRA, and DCI, followed by a unanimous approval vote on August 13, 2024.
“The respondents demonstrated compliance with constitutional and statutory procedures. Courts cannot usurp the Legislature’s role absent proven illegality,” the court stated.
Another finding was that the petitioners did not meet the legal threshold to prove forgery or misconduct, dismissing allegations of a “clandestine edit” to the Gazette Notice as speculative.
“The petitioner simply relies on bare press release to drive the narrative whose source was not even authenticated, raising admissibility concerns,” said the court.
The judgment reaffirms the President’s authority to accept resignations under Section 11 of the Attorney-General Act but clarifies that outright dismissals must meet strict criteria under Section 12.
It also underscores the burden of proof in constitutional petitions, with the court stressing that “whoever alleges must prove”.
With the case dismissed, Ms Oduor’s tenure as AG remains undisturbed. Mr Muturi was later in March 2025 sacked as Cabinet Secretary for Public Service.
