The High Court has upheld President William Ruto ’s power to establish temporary advisory task forces, dismissing a petition challenging the legality of the body formed to address gender-based violence and femicide.
Justice Patricia Gichohi ruled that the Constitution gives the President discretion to create such teams where urgent national issues require coordinated attention, provided they do not take over duties assigned to independent commissions or constitutional offices.
“The Constitution, read holistically, gives the President general discretion to perform executive functions necessary to implement existing laws,” said the court.
The court also found that former Deputy Chief Justice Nancy Baraza was not constitutionally barred from public office because she resigned before the 2012 tribunal’s recommendation for her removal was implemented.
The case challenged a taskforce created through Gazette Notice of January 9, 2025, after President Ruto directed a review of the country’s response to GBV and femicide.
This followed growing public anger over the reported increase in killings of women and girls, including at least 97 femicides recorded by police between August and October 2024. The figures are compared with at least 75 cases recorded in 2023 and 46 in 2022.
The killings triggered nationwide protests and demands for stronger investigations, survivor protection and accountability.
A second notice, issued on March 28, 2025, followed the initial appointment. The official Gazette Notice said the group was formed against the backdrop of gaps in prevention, response, investigation, prosecution, data collection and survivor support.
The petitioners, Dr Magare-Gikenyi, Eliud Karanja Matindi, Dishon Keroti Mogire and Philemon Abuga Nyakundi, sued in the public interest.
They argued that the President had no power to establish the team and that its mandate duplicated the work of the National Gender and Equality Commission, the National Police Service, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
They also challenged the appointment process, saying members had not been selected through fair competition and merit. They claimed the taskforce was created without adequate public participation.
The petitioners questioned Ms Baraza’s appointment following findings by a tribunal that had recommended her removal from the office of Deputy Chief Justice. They also sought orders requiring the President to personally meet the cost of the taskforce, arguing that public funds had been committed without a lawful foundation.
The respondents, including the Attorney-General, the National Gender and Equality Commission, relevant Principal Secretaries, Solicitor-General, Ms Baraza and other taskforce members, defended the taskforce as a temporary, non-coercive advisory body.
They said the President’s constitutional duty to protect vulnerable groups, together with his authority to direct national executive functions, supported its creation.
They argued that the team could study problems, consult communities and recommend reforms without investigating crimes, prosecuting suspects or replacing institutions legally mandated to perform those functions. They also said the taskforce had completed its work, making some prayers overtaken by events.
Justice Gichohi accepted that some terms of reference might appear to overlap with existing institutions. However, she found that the overlap did not amount to an unlawful transfer of power.
“It may appear like there was some duplication of roles in some Terms of Reference. The Taskforce was constituted to advise the President as per the Terms of Reference (TOR) but with no powers in regard to decision-making,” said the judge.
She added that the authority could extend to ad hoc taskforces established to address matters requiring immediate attention.
The taskforce was authorized to identify trends and hotspots, examine causes, review laws and policies, propose legislative amendments, assess training and resources, consult communities and recommend measures on prevention, investigations, prosecution and survivor support.
The court said those assignments remained advisory. Recommendations on prosecution did not mean the taskforce had assumed the powers of the ODPP, while references to investigations and prevention did not place it in charge of the police or DCI.
The court therefore declined to quash its mandate. On Ms Baraza, the court examined Article 75(3), which disqualifies a person “dismissed or otherwise removed” from office for violating integrity rules from holding another State office.
“She was not formally dismissed or otherwise removed from office,” the court found, adding that the constitutional disqualification had therefore not been activated.
The court also rejected the claim that the President should personally refund money spent by the taskforce. It held that Article 143(2) protects a sitting President from civil or criminal proceedings during tenure for acts performed in official capacity.
Justice Gichohi further said the President was not an accounting officer under the Public Finance Management Act, making the petitioners’ reliance on Article 226(5) misplaced.
