Ruto’s 21 advisers return to work as Appeals Court grants them temporary reprieve
President William Ruto. Inset are his advisers including Dr David Ndii, Prof Makau Mutua, Jaoko Oburu (Raila Odinga's nephew), lawyer Harriet Chiggai and Dennis Itumbi.
President William Ruto’s 21 advisers have secured a temporary reprieve after the Court of Appeal suspended a High Court ruling that declared their offices unconstitutional.
The appellate court halted the enforcement of the January 2026 judgment that had invalidated the creation of the Office of Presidential Advisers, allowing the officials to remain in office pending the hearing and determination of the government’s appeal.
This is after the government, through Principal Administrative Secretary in the Executive Office of the President Arthur Osiya, filed an affidavit in court stating that "the High Court judgment and consequential orders had technically rendered the Executive Office of the President inoperative and ineffective."
President Ruto policy advisers David Ndii,Mohammed Hassan, Dr Nancy Laibuni, Dr Monica Juma
and Mr Henry Rotich.
The advisers led by David Ndii (Chairperson, Presidential Council of Economic Advisers), Makau Mutua (Senior Adviser on Constitutional Affairs), Monica Juma (National Security Adviser), Harriet Chigai (Women’s Rights Adviser), and Edward Kisiang’ani, had been removed from office following a finding that their hiring was unlawful.
Others include Jaoko Oburu, Joseph Boinnet, Sylvester Kasuku, Nancy Laibuni, Abdi Guliye, Sylvia Kang’ara, Ali Mahat Somane, Dominic Menjo, Kennedy Ongeto, Augustine Cheruiyot, Henry Kinyua, Joe Ager, Karisa Nzai, Mohammed Hassan, Steven Otieno, and Christopher Doye Nakuleu.
Recently, Dr Juma was appointed Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as well as Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV).
Their removal stemmed from a constitutional petition filed by rights group Katiba Institute challenging the legality of the advisers’ offices.
In the far-reaching judgment that reopened debate over the limits of presidential power, the court found that the establishment of the advisory units, described as “Kitchen Cabinet” by petitioners, and the filling of the positions violated constitutional and statutory safeguards governing public appointments.
The court held that President Ruto overstepped his powers and bypassed the mandatory recommendatory role of the Public Service Commission (PSC) under Article 132(4)(a) of the Constitution. Another finding was that the process proceeded without proper involvement of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission on the fiscal implications of the new posts.
But in a ruling delivered Friday afternoon, a three-judge bench said the government had demonstrated that the appeal raises arguable issues. It held that enforcing the High Court decision immediately could disrupt the functioning of the Executive Office of the President.
The judges said the Attorney-General had satisfied the legal test required for the grant of stay orders.
“The applicant has satisfied the two limbs for the grant of the order sought,” the court ruled, adding that execution of the contested judgment would therefore be suspended pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
The case arose from a constitutional petition filed by Katiba Institute challenging the legality of several advisory roles created within the presidency.
The High Court declared the offices unconstitutional, triggering an appeal by the Attorney-General who argued that the ruling could cripple operations at State House.
The AG told the court that the advisers were already in office and were handling critical responsibilities, including national security matters, economic policy, foreign relations and intergovernmental coordination.
The government lawyers argued that their abrupt removal without a handover could destabilise key functions of the presidency. The AG's application was backed by the Public Service Commission and the 21 advisers.
“The immediate removal of the advisors will lead to serious consequences like creation of instability or constitutional uncertainty,” the court noted while summarising the government’s submissions.
The bench also observed that the advisers had already assumed office and were actively performing their duties when the High Court decision was delivered.
In those circumstances, the court said, declining to grant a stay order could cause administrative disruption within the Executive Office of the President.
“We are convinced that the applicant has satisfied the two limbs for the grant of the order sought,” the judges said in allowing the application.
Katiba Institute, however, argues that the creation of the offices bypassed constitutional procedures and risks duplicating roles already assigned to cabinet secretaries and other state officials.
"No gap in the executive will be occasioned by failure to grant stay and instead, there will be duplication of functions and wastage of public resources if the former advisors are allowed to step back into office," said Katiba's advocate Emily Kimana in opposing the government's application.
Katiba argued that it was Kenyans who will be prejudiced if the stay orders are granted. It argued that suspending execution of the contested judgment would amount to allowing continued unconstitutional activities.
But the court noted that the intended appeal raises weighty constitutional questions and should be heard urgently.
The bench recommended that the President of the Court of Appeal prioritise the case due to its significant public interest implications.
The dispute centres on the legality of creating advisory roles within the presidency and whether the appointments complied with constitutional requirements and public service laws.
President Ruto had appointed the advisers to assist in areas such as economic policy, constitutional affairs and foreign relations, positions the government says are necessary for the effective running of the Executive Office of the President.
With the stay order now in force, the advisers will continue serving as the appellate court prepares to hear the substantive appeal.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
