Two senior advisers to President William Ruto, economist David Ndii and Women’s Rights Advisor Harriette Chiggai, are embroiled in a fresh legal battle over accusations of contempt of court.
The case stems from their social media activity following a High Court ruling that nullified their appointments, along with those of 19 other presidential advisers.
Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The court cited a lack of proper recommendations from the Public Service Commission, insufficient public participation, and failure to scrutinise financial implications.
In an urgent application filed yesterday, the Katiba Institute, the petitioner in the original case, seeks to have Mr Ndii and Ms Chiggai cited for contempt, alleging that their posts on X (formerly Twitter) amounted to open defiance of the court’s orders.
The petitioner argues that their conduct went beyond lawful commentary and instead sought to undermine judicial authority.
According to the application, Mr Ndii reacted to the ruling with a series of posts that allegedly mocked the court’s decision.
One post read: “Pyrrhic victory. We don’t need state offices to advise the president… We can do it as an informal kitchen cabinet over breakfast every morning.”
Another stated: “When law collides with politics, politics wins. Every time.” The petitioner contends that these remarks suggested judicial decisions are subordinate to political power.
In Ms Chiggai’s case, the application alleges that she posted a photograph on her X account a day after the judgment, showing her attending a public function in what appeared to be an official capacity.
Katiba Institute argues that this action created the impression that the court’s ruling could be disregarded, thereby undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The petitioner maintains that both advisers had full knowledge of the court’s orders, which were issued in open court, widely reported in the media, and delivered in the presence of State counsel.
Their alleged defiance, the petitioner argues, risks eroding respect for judicial authority and sets a dangerous precedent for non-compliance with court rulings.
The High Court’s original judgment was a landmark decision that not only nullified the advisory offices but also barred payment of salaries to the affected officials and ordered a comprehensive audit of the Executive Office of the President.
Despite appeals by the Attorney General and the Public Service Commission to suspend the ruling, the court declined, reinforcing the immediate enforceability of its orders.
Katiba Institute’s latest application warns that unchecked attacks on the judiciary by high-ranking officials could weaken public trust in the legal system.
It urges the court to impose sanctions on Mr Ndii and Ms Chiggai to reaffirm that judicial authority must be respected in a constitutional democracy.
“Unless this Court intervenes immediately to send a clear and firm message, this conduct risks going unchecked,” argued Katiba’s advocate, Malidzo Nyawa. “There exists a real and imminent danger that the authority of the Court and the integrity of the judicial process will be brought into disrepute in the eyes of the public.”
Meanwhile, the attorney -general and the Public Service Commission have lodged an appeal seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision and reinstate the advisers. However, until the appellate court rules, the original judgment remains binding.
Attorney-General Dorcus Oduor gives her submissions in court on September 20, 2024.
Photo credit: Wilfred Nyangaresi | Nation Media Group
The case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the obligation to uphold judicial authority, particularly when senior government officials are involved.
The contempt application is pending hearing and determination. Mr Ndii and Ms Chiggai have not yet filed their responses.
