Nairobi, Kenya – The Katiba Institute has urged the High Court to reject an application by President William Ruto’s 21 advisors seeking a stay of the ruling that recently declared their appointments null and void.
Katiba’s Position
In its response, the constitutional watchdog argued that the advisors have no legal basis to seek a stay or review of the judgment, stressing that the High Court’s decision was final and can only be challenged through an appeal to a higher court.
“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,” reads the response filed in court.
Through its lawyer, Malidzo Nyawa, Katiba further contended that the application for stay is unmerited, noting that the advisors failed to demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer if the orders were not suspended.
Government Operations Not Crippled
Katiba dismissed claims that the absence of the advisors would cripple government operations, pointing out that the President and the Executive have successfully delivered public services within the constitutional framework since 2010 without the contested 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. What are these cataclysmic or debilitating consequences that will suddenly befall the people of Kenya as they await the determination of an appeal, if any is filed?” the Institute argued.
Role of the Attorney General
The court was also told that if there were genuine concerns about disruption to government operations, it was the Attorney General, not the advisors, who ought to have moved the court.
“If the application before the court is not about the Executive, whose interest is the application meant to serve? It is clear that the application is brought by the Interested Parties to serve their own interests,” the papers state.
Background
The High Court had earlier ruled that the creation and staffing of the advisors’ offices was unconstitutional, rendering their appointments null and void. The ruling has sparked debate about the scope of presidential powers and the constitutional limits on creating new offices within the Executive.
Conclusion
Katiba Institute’s opposition underscores the broader constitutional questions surrounding the legality of presidential appointments and the balance of power within Kenya’s governance framework. As the matter proceeds, the court’s decision will likely set an important precedent on the boundaries of executive authority and judicial finality.
