The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a petition seeking to have Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale declared unfit for public office over his decision to establish a committee to verify unpaid medical claims.
The committee, formed in March 2025, was tasked with verifying Sh33 billion owed to healthcare providers under the defunct National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF).
The court ruled that petitioner Francis Awino had failed to prove that Mr Duale violated Chapter Six of the Constitution or engaged in corruption, nepotism or dishonesty warranting his removal.
The decision leaves intact an earlier Eldoret High Court judgment, which declared the committee unconstitutional and quashed its establishment in August 2025. The Nairobi court found that the earlier ruling had already settled challenges to the committee’s legality and its potential exposure of patients’ confidential medical records.
The dispute arose from the government’s efforts to establish which unpaid hospital claims left by NHIF were genuine and should be settled after the fund’s functions were transferred to the Social Health Authority (SHA).
President William Ruto announced in March 2025 that NHIF owed healthcare providers about Sh33 billion. The government proposed paying facilities with claims of Sh10 million or less while verifying larger bills before agreeing on payment plans.
Mr Duale subsequently appointed a 19-member verification committee through a Gazette Notice published on March 28, 2025. Its mandate covered claims accumulated between July 1, 2022, and September 30, 2024, including identifying potentially fraudulent submissions and recommending claims for settlement.
Mr Awino, who describes himself as a public-interest advocate and president of Bunge la Mwananchi, filed his petition on August 18, 2025, a week after the Eldoret judgment. He argued that Mr Duale had established the committee without legal authority, public participation, competitive recruitment or parliamentary approval.
He also accused the Cabinet Secretary of usurping the Auditor-General’s powers, interfering with Parliament’s oversight role and exposing sensitive patient information to unauthorised persons.
Mr Awino sought declarations of constitutional violations, an investigation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), and orders compelling the President and the Public Service Commission to initiate Mr Duale’s removal from office. He further asked the court to declare the Cabinet Secretary unfit to hold any public office, permanently bar him from establishing similar committees and make him personally responsible for legal costs.
Mr Duale opposed the petition, arguing that it lacked sufficient detail and evidence and repeated issues already decided in Eldoret. He also maintained that removing a Cabinet Secretary must follow the procedure set out in the Constitution, involving Parliament and the President.
The court, however, rejected the argument that the entire petition was barred by the earlier case. It ruled that the questions concerning the committee’s legality and patient privacy had already been decided, but the separate claim that Mr Duale personally breached integrity rules required consideration.
The judge noted that the CS had not produced the alleged notice of appeal against the Eldoret judgment, and that the court record did not establish that an appeal had been filed.
On the integrity allegations, the court said Mr Awino had presented no evidence linking Mr Duale to committee members through family, personal, business or political relationships, or showing that the Cabinet Secretary stood to benefit personally from the exercise.
“What the judgment in the Eldoret Constitutional Petition found is that the Committee had no constitutional or statutory basis,” said Justice Gregory Mutai.
The judge added that the earlier court had found the committee’s terms of reference insufficiently precise to prevent exposure of identifiable patient information.
However, Justice Mutai drew a distinction between an unlawful decision and proof of personal misconduct. “There is a material distinction between a decision that is unlawful and a decision-maker who lacks integrity,” he said.
The court ruled that the earlier finding did not establish corruption, dishonesty or bad faith by Mr Duale. It also held that the Constitution provides specific procedures for disciplining and removing Cabinet Secretaries, which could not be bypassed through the orders Mr Awino sought.
The court dismissed the petition and directed each party to bear its own costs, noting that the case raised matters of genuine public importance.
