NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has been petitioned to urgently halt the appointment of Winnie Tsuma to the National Environment Tribunal, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for how quasi-judicial bodies are constituted in Kenya.
The petition, filed by constitutional watchdog Katiba Institute, seeks conservatory orders suspending Tsuma’s appointment, which was published under Gazette Notice No. 396 of 2026 and is scheduled to take effect on February 8, 2026.
Katiba Institute has also asked the court to certify the matter as urgent, warning that allowing the appointment to proceed would entrench what it describes as an unconstitutional exercise of executive power.
The case names the Attorney-General, the National Assembly, and the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Forestry as respondents.
At the centre of the dispute is the status of the National Environment Tribunal, which Katiba Institute argues is a subordinate court that must be administered under the Judiciary.
Katiba Institute Moves to Court Over Unconstitutional Appointment of Tribunal Members:Katiba Institute has today (22.01.2026) moved to the High Court to challenge the continued defiance by the Executive and the Legislature of the Constitution and binding court decisions on the
The institute contends that appointments to such tribunals should be made by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) — not the Executive.
According to the petition, Tsuma’s appointment violates binding court precedents, including a High Court ruling and a Court of Appeal decision delivered in 2025, which held that executive appointments to tribunals undermine the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the right to a fair hearing.
Beyond the individual appointment, the petition also mounts a constitutional challenge against Section 88(2) of the Gambling Control Act, which empowers the President and a Cabinet Secretary to appoint members of the Gambling Appeals Tribunal.
Katiba Institute argues that the provision contradicts established constitutional jurisprudence placing tribunals within the Judiciary’s administrative framework, rather than under executive control.
“The Respondents have treated the Constitution as optional and binding court decisions as disposable,” the institute states in court papers, warning that failure to intervene would weaken the authority of the courts and normalise unconstitutional appointments.
The watchdog further argues that post-judgment remedies would be ineffective, noting that decisions made by improperly constituted tribunals cannot simply be undone.
It insists that immediate court intervention is necessary to safeguard constitutional supremacy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.
The High Court is yet to issue directions on the application.
