Petition Seeks to Bar Ruto's Cabinet Secretaries Over Gender Rule Violation

Three petitioners, including Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, have moved to the High Court seeking orders to stop President William Ruto's Cabinet Secretaries from exercising executive powers over alleged failure by the government to comply with the constitutional two-thirds gender rule.

The petition, filed on November 2, 2026, argues that the continued operation of the Cabinet is unconstitutional following the expiry of a 120-day deadline issued by the High Court for President Ruto to reconstitute the Cabinet to meet the constitutional gender requirement.

The applicants, Eliud Karanja Matindi, Dr Magare Gikenyi Benjamin and Omtatah, want the court to prohibit 25 members of the national executive, including Deputy President Kithure Kindiki and Cabinet Secretaries, from presenting themselves as members of the Cabinet or exercising powers and responsibilities assigned to them under the Constitution.

Petitioners Challenge Cabinet's Legitimacy

The petition follows a June 30, 2026, High Court judgment which declared the composition of President Ruto's Cabinet unconstitutional for failing to meet the two-thirds gender principle.

At the time, the 25-member national executive comprised 18 men and seven women, meaning women accounted for approximately 28 per cent of its membership.

Article 27(8) of the Constitution requires the State to take legislative and other measures to ensure that no more than two-thirds of members of elective or appointive bodies are of the same gender.

The court directed the appointing authority to reconstitute the Cabinet in compliance with the constitutional requirement within 120 days.

However, the petitioners argue that the government failed to implement the directive before the deadline expired on October 28, 2026.

They contend that Cabinet Secretaries have continued exercising executive authority despite the alleged failure to comply with the court's orders.

Petition Seeks Suspension of Executive Order

Among the reliefs sought, the petitioners want the court to suspend Executive Order No. 1 of 2025, which assigns Cabinet Secretaries responsibilities relating to the implementation and administration of Acts of Parliament.

They are also seeking orders restraining the Controller of Budget from approving withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds to facilitate the payment of salaries, allowances and other benefits to the affected officials in their capacity as members of the national executive.

Additionally, the applicants want the court to declare that the continued exercise of executive powers by the affected officials is unlawful and that decisions made after the expiry of the compliance period should be invalidated.

They have further sought orders requiring the officials to refund public money received as salaries and benefits during the disputed period.

Court Declines to Certify Petition as Urgent

On November 5, 2026, the High Court declined to certify the application as urgent.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi directed the petitioners to serve the application and petition on all respondents and interested parties by November 9, 2026.

The respondents were directed to file their responses within 14 days of service or by November 24, whichever comes first.

The court also granted the petitioners permission to file a further affidavit within seven days after receiving the responses, but not later than December 2, 2026.

The matter is scheduled for mention on February 10, 2027, to confirm compliance and receive further directions.

Gender Representation Debate Returns to the Spotlight

The case has renewed debate over the implementation of constitutional gender representation requirements in Kenya's public institutions.

The two-thirds gender principle is intended to promote equal representation and participation of women and men in public decision-making structures.

The petitioners maintain that compliance with court orders is mandatory and that government officials cannot continue exercising constitutional powers while disregarding judicial directives.

However, the court is yet to determine the substantive issues raised in the petition or grant the orders sought against the Cabinet.

The outcome could have significant implications for the composition of the national executive, the legality of government decisions and the enforcement of constitutional gender representation requirements.