Premium
Hours after formation, High Court slams brakes on Ruto anti-graft taskforce
The order suspends the operation and implementation of “Presidential proclamation on the establishment of a multi-agency team on war against corruption” dated August 18, 2025.
What you need to know:
- In the petition, the activists claim that the President usurped the powers and functions of the EACC.
- "The so-called powers are just ‘imaginary hot air mirage powers’ which do not exist in our progressive constitution,” say the petitioners led by Dr Magare Gikenyi.
The High Court has slammed brakes on President William Ruto’s decision to establish a multi-agency team on war against corruption, pending determination of a suit that claims he acted illegally.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued the conservatory order following an application by four activists who argue that the executive order issued by the President is illegal, irregular and unconstitutional.
The order suspends implementation of the “Presidential proclamation on the establishment of a multi-agency team on war against corruption” dated August 18, 2025.
This means the 11-member taskforce, whose membership included State officials in the security and financial sectors, will not be working as expected by the President.
Justice Mwamuye directed that the case be heard and determined within 90 days from September 9, 2025, when the matter is slated for mention to confirm parties have exchanged documents.
He directed the respondents including the taskforce, Attorney-General, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Financial Reporting Centre to file responses by August 29, 2025.
Other respondents include the Asset Recovery Agency, the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA).
'Usurped EACC's powers'
In the petition, the activists claim that the President usurped the powers and functions of the EACC, which an independent body tasked with investigating corruption and unethical conduct, preventing corruption, recovering public property.
“A look of the functions of the president as provided at Article 132(4) of the Constitution prima facie provide that the President does not have powers to establish any anti-corruption agency whatsoever. The so-called powers are just ‘imaginary hot air mirage powers’ which do not exist in our progressive constitution,” say the petitioners led by Dr Magare Gikenyi. Others are Eliud Matindi, Philemon Abuga and Dishon Keroti.
They maintain that where the Constitution provides for specific functions to be performed by a particular entity, the President does not have power to perform said function.
“This means the president does not have powers to perform functions of EACC as provided in Article 79 of the Constitution as read with Section 11,12 & 13 of the Ethics And Anticorruption Commission 2011,” claim the petitioners.
They are challenging the constitutional validity of the executive order in its entirety.
They also fault the President’s decision to appoint an officer from his office as the chairperson of the taskforce, arguing that the move intends to shield the Office of the President from scrutiny by the team.
The petitioners cited Auditor-General reports alleging irregularities, though the government has previously disputed these findings.
“...The public having been aware of various reports of the Auditor-General which pointed fingers at the Executive office of the President as having been involved in actions and/or omissions involving corruption, including the Sh104 billion SHA system procurement and the eCitizen convenience fee and platform fiasco, the action of the president essentially shields him and his office from public scrutiny of independent offices like EACC. This selfish action(s) must be nipped in the bud by this honourable court,” they say in the application.
For the ODPP, they maintain that its participation is also illegal because the Constitution says the office is independent and that the DPP should not require the consent of any person or authority for the commencement of criminal proceedings.
The petition is scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2025.
The case could set a precedent on presidential powers and anti-corruption efforts, with a ruling expected by December 2025 going the 90-day timeline set by the court.
