Katiba Institute has asked the High Court to decline an application filed by President William Ruto’s advisors seeking to suspend or review a judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional. The institute argues that the court has no jurisdiction to revisit a final decision and that the advisers have failed to meet the legal threshold for a stay.
In court papers filed on Monday, Katiba Institute maintained that once a judgment is delivered, any party dissatisfied with the outcome can only challenge it through an appeal to a higher court. According to the institute, the advisers’ application is an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been conclusively determined.
The case stems from an earlier High Court ruling that invalidated the creation and staffing of advisory offices within the presidency, rendering the appointments of 21 advisers null and void.
Katiba Institute Challenges Ruto Advisors Application
Through its lawyer Malidzo Nyawa, Katiba Institute argued that the Ruto advisors application has no legal foundation. The institute told the court that the advisers are improperly asking the same court to reopen and reconsider its own final judgment.
“A party cannot, through the guise of an application which is in substance and effect an appeal, invite this Court to reopen, reconsider, or sit in judgment over its own final decision,” Katiba stated in its response.
The institute further contended that the advisers have not demonstrated any prejudice they would suffer if the court declines to suspend the orders. In Katiba’s view, the request for a stay is speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Government Functioning Without Advisors
Katiba Institute dismissed claims that the absence of the advisers would cripple government operations. It argued that Kenya’s Executive has functioned within the constitutional framework since 2010 without the contested advisory offices.
“The President and the Executive have been able to deliver public services within the framework established by the Constitution before the creation of the contested offices,” Katiba submitted. The institute questioned what sudden or catastrophic consequences would arise while the advisers pursue an appeal, if any.
By raising this point, Katiba Institute sought to counter the narrative that public interest requires the advisers to remain in office pending further legal processes.
Attorney General’s Role Questioned
Katiba Institute also questioned who the application is meant to serve. It told the court that if there were genuine concerns about disruption to government operations, the matter should have been brought by the Attorney General rather than by individual advisers.
“If the application before the court is not about the Executive, whose interest is the application meant to serve?” Katiba asked in its filings. The institute argued that the advisers are acting in their personal interest rather than in the public interest.
Background of the Advisory Offices Ruling
The High Court previously ruled that the creation of the advisory offices violated constitutional provisions, effectively nullifying the appointments of the advisers. Among those affected are members of President Ruto’s advisory team, including David Ndii and Monica Juma.
The judgment marked a significant moment in ongoing debates about the scope of executive power and adherence to constitutional limits under William Ruto’s administration.
As the court considers the Ruto advisors application, Katiba Institute’s position underscores its broader argument that constitutional compliance must prevail over administrative convenience. The next steps in the case are expected to clarify whether the advisers will pursue an appeal or accept the outcome of the High Court’s ruling.
