NAIROBI, Kenya – Former Chief Justice and Presidential Aspirant David Maraga has demanded that President William Ruto immediately reconstitute his Cabinet to comply with the constitutional two-thirds gender rule or resign, following the expiry of a court-ordered deadline.
In a strongly worded statement issued on Friday, October 30, Maraga accused the President of disregarding the Constitution and criticised the government’s attempts to challenge a High Court judgment requiring changes to the Cabinet’s composition.
Maraga’s remarks came two days after the October 28 deadline set by the High Court expired without the required changes being made.
The court had on June 30, 2026, declared the Cabinet unconstitutional for failing to comply with the two-thirds gender principle under Article 27(8) of the Constitution. It directed the President to reconstitute the Cabinet within 120 days.
At the time of the judgment, the Cabinet had 25 members, comprising 18 men and seven women. The court’s decision required the government to increase women’s representation to at least nine members.
Maraga questions government’s court application
The former Chief Justice took issue with an application filed by Attorney General Dorcas Oduor seeking to suspend the High Court judgment pending an appeal.
On Thursday, October 29, the Court of Appeal declined to certify the application as urgent and directed the parties to exchange court documents and submissions within 30 days.
The appellate court’s directions did not amount to a final determination of the government’s intended appeal or the substantive request for a stay.
Maraga, however, argued that filing the application did not automatically suspend the High Court orders and that the President remained obligated to comply unless a higher court granted a stay.
He also questioned why the government had waited until the deadline was about to expire to pursue urgent intervention, noting that the application was dated October 6.
The former Chief Justice described the government’s approach as an attempt to seek urgent relief after allowing the 120-day compliance period to run out.
Threat of legal action over non-compliance
Maraga warned that the failure to meet the deadline could trigger further legal action, including possible contempt proceedings against government officials.
He argued that the Attorney General could face contempt proceedings as the government’s principal legal adviser, while acknowledging the constitutional immunity enjoyed by a sitting President under Article 143.
He further claimed that decisions and public expenditure authorised by the Cabinet after the deadline could be challenged in court.
However, his assertions that all subsequent Cabinet decisions automatically become legal nullities and that every expenditure authorised by the Cabinet is illegal represent his legal position, not findings established by the High Court judgment.
The original ruling declared the Cabinet’s composition unconstitutional and ordered corrective action within 120 days. The consequences of the missed deadline and any alleged contempt would require further legal determination.
Maraga draws comparison with Uhuru Kenyatta era
The former Chief Justice recalled his role in the 2012 advisory proceedings concerning Parliament’s failure to implement the two-thirds gender principle.
During his tenure as Chief Justice, Maraga advised then President Uhuru Kenyatta to dissolve Parliament over its failure to meet the constitutional gender requirement.
He said the same constitutional standard should apply to the current administration, arguing that compliance with the Constitution cannot be treated as optional.
Maraga also questioned why Ruto was challenging a judgment requiring greater representation of women in Cabinet, asking whether the government could not identify at least two additional qualified women after being given four months.
Fresh criticism after housing ruling
Maraga’s statement also referenced a separate High Court judgment delivered on Thursday, October 29, by Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande.
The court ruled that President Ruto’s announcements proposing preferential allocation of affordable housing units to teachers and police officers had no legal effect because they lacked a statutory or policy basis.
The judge held that presidential pronouncements could not introduce or alter housing allocation criteria established under the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.
Maraga cited the ruling as another example of the limits the Constitution places on presidential authority, arguing that executive announcements must remain within the law.
He also criticised the government’s handling of public resources and referred to the planned Bayern Munich-Ajax match at the Raila Odinga International Stadium, questioning the priorities behind public spending.
Maraga calls for immediate Cabinet changes
In his closing remarks, Maraga urged Ruto to stop pursuing what he termed wasteful appeals and immediately reconstitute the Cabinet in accordance with the Constitution.
He warned that continued defiance of court orders could undermine the rule of law and called on the President to resign if he was unwilling to comply.
Maraga, who is a co-party leader of UGM and a declared 2027 presidential candidate, has increasingly positioned constitutional compliance and accountability at the centre of his public interventions.
The Cabinet gender dispute now places the government under renewed legal and political pressure as the Court of Appeal process continues.
