Premium
High Court: Ruto can bring his advisers to Cabinet meetings
David Ndii (Economic Adviser) and Monicah Juma (National Security Adviser to President William Ruto) during a past Cabinet meeting at State House, Nairobi.
What you need to know:
- The petition filed by rights advocate Charles Mugane claimed that attendance of Cabinet meetings by advisers would amount to establishing a government other than what is provided for by the Constitution.
The High Court in Nairobi has upheld President William Ruto’s decision to occasionally invite his advisers in Cabinet meetings, dismissing claims that the move was unconstitutional.
In the precedent-setting verdict concerning exercise of Executive power, the court found that non-permanent inclusion of experts and advisers in the Cabinet seating does not breach the Constitution.
According to Justice Lawrence Mugambi, though Article 152(1) of the Constitution expressly outlines the composition of the Cabinet it does not bar the President or Cabinet from occasionally inviting experts or advisers to attend the meetings.
“However, I think a thin line must be drawn between permanent inclusion of non-Cabinet members attending meetings on a regular basis and occasional invitation of experts or advisers into the meetings of the Cabinet on a need basis to advise on specific policy matters being considered by the Cabinet. The Cabinet should retain the power to make such discretionary invitations,” said Justice Mugambi.
He dismissed a petition challenging President Ruto’s decision to allow his advisers David Ndii (Chairperson, President’s Council of Economic Advisers), Monica Juma (Secretary to the National Security Council) and Harriet Chigai (Presidential Adviser on Women Rights) to sit in the Cabinet.
According to Article 152(1) of the Constitution, the Cabinet consists of the President, the Deputy President, the Attorney-General and not fewer than 14 and not more than 22 Cabinet Secretaries.
The petition filed by rights advocate Charles Mugane claimed that attendance of Cabinet meetings by advisers would amount to establishing a government other than what is provided for by the Constitution.
Petition 'stands on quick sand'
He claimed that the contested decision was contained in Executive Order No. 2 of 2023, but he was unable to prove the same to the court.
Despite making the claim that the decision to include the three advisers in Cabinet was a Cabinet decision, the petitioner did not furnish the court with the written decision to ascertain the allegation. The petitioner instead relied on news reports to prop up his claim.
“In essence, the petition stands on quick sand, it is not cogent and reliable evidence that the court can comfortably rely on to arrive at a concrete finding,” said the judge.
In the verdict, the court said neither the Constitution nor any law expressly bars the Cabinet or President from seeking counsel for purposes of having the Cabinet benefit from experts before making policy decisions on a matter before it.
“I do not therefore think that it is the business of this court to interpret that legal gap in a manner that constrains discretion of the Cabinet or even the President on an internal operational matter,” said the judge.
The court also found that the petitioner did not tender credible proof of their permanent inclusion in Cabinet meetings.
In response to the petition, Ms Juma and Ms Chigai asserted that while the Constitution outlines the composition of the Cabinet, it does not exclude the President from calling upon other advisers or officials such as themselves to attend cabinet meetings.
Furthermore, it was argued that these advisory roles are in line with Executive functions.
