NAIROBI, Kenya — Azimio and United Opposition leaders have welcomed a fresh High Court ruling declaring unconstitutional a law that restricted retired presidents from participating in active politics.
The leaders said the decision affirms former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s constitutional right to remain politically active after leaving State House.
They spoke Monday at the SKM Command Centre in Karen, Nairobi, shortly after Justice Bahati Mwamuye declared Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act unconstitutional and void in its entirety.
Kalonzo: Ruling Clarifies Uhuru’s Political Rights
Wiper Patriotic Front leader Kalonzo Musyoka said the judgment had clarified the position on Uhuru’s continued participation in Kenya’s multiparty politics.
Kalonzo criticised President William Ruto’s description of Uhuru as a “rebel leader”, arguing that the former president remains entitled to participate in politics as a private citizen.
“So, when you call Uhuru Kenyatta a rebel leader, you are actually acting in breach of the Constitution,” Kalonzo said.
He said Kenya’s Constitution recognises the sovereignty of the people and establishes the country as a multiparty democracy in which government and opposition parties have distinct roles.
Kalonzo also said Uhuru’s decision to relinquish formal political offices following an earlier court ruling did not amount to surrendering his constitutional political rights.
“That matter has since been clarified,” he said.
Fresh Ruling Conflicts With Earlier Uhuru Judgment
Justice Mwamuye’s decision comes only a week after another High Court judge reached the opposite conclusion on Section 6.
On September 14, Justice Lawrence Mugambi upheld the provision, which restricts retired presidents from holding formal political party leadership positions more than six months after leaving office.
Following that judgment, Uhuru said he was ready to facilitate the handover of his Jubilee Party leadership in accordance with the party’s constitution and the law.
Justice Mwamuye has now declared Section 6 unconstitutional and void in its entirety, finding that restrictions on a retired president’s political participation interfere with constitutionally protected political rights.
The two judgments therefore leave a significant legal question unsettled unless and until the conflicting positions are resolved through the appellate process.
Judge: Former President Becomes Private Citizen
In his judgment, Mwamuye distinguished the authority exercised by a sitting president from the rights enjoyed by a former president.
The judge held that leaving State House ends the former president’s exercise of the coercive and executive authority of the State.
“The person thereafter stands in a fundamentally different constitutional position: he or she is a private citizen, albeit one who has previously occupied the highest elective office in the Republic,” the judge said.
The court found that Section 6 could not lawfully be used to restrict the political rights of a retired president simply because that person had previously occupied the presidency.
The judgment also dealt with provisions concerning the retirement benefits of former presidents, declaring Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) unconstitutional and issuing orders preventing their use to disadvantage a former president.
Uhuru’s Political Role Comes Into Focus
The ruling has direct implications for Uhuru, whose political role has remained a subject of debate since he left office in 2022.
Uhuru relinquished his formal position as Jubilee Party leader after the September 14 judgment, while remaining involved in opposition politics.
He is also chairman of the Council of the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition Party, which recently rebranded as the Ukombozi Alliance under the slogan “One Term, One Team, One Coalition.”
Ruto-Uhuru Political Dispute Intensifies
The court battle has unfolded alongside increasingly sharp political exchanges between Ruto and his predecessor.
During his recent tour of Nyanza, Ruto questioned Uhuru’s continued involvement in opposition politics and referred to him as a “rebel leader”.
The remarks drew criticism from opposition figures, with Siaya Governor James Orengo accusing the President of making offensive comments about Uhuru and the late former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
“Most of us were offended by the words of President Ruto when he was in Nyanza,” Orengo said.
He also rejected Ruto’s description of Raila as a “project”, saying the opposition would issue a more detailed response to the President’s remarks.
Kalonzo Says Uhuru Will Not Face Ruto
Kalonzo said the opposition would respond to Ruto politically rather than allowing Uhuru to be drawn into a direct contest with his successor.
“He’s not. We will be the ones responding to William Ruto, not Uhuru Kenyatta because he wants to draw him into unnecessary contest and Uhuru Kenyatta has said ‘No’,” Kalonzo said.
The latest judgment now adds a new legal dimension to the political dispute, with one High Court ruling having upheld restrictions on retired presidents’ formal party leadership and another, delivered seven days later, declaring the same statutory restriction unconstitutional.
