Five civil society organisations want Cabinet Secretaries barred from exercising their powers and their salaries frozen, accusing President William Ruto of defying a court order requiring him to reconstitute the Cabinet within 120 days.
NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has certified as urgent an application seeking to suspend the operations of President William Ruto’s Cabinet over the alleged failure to comply with a judgment requiring the Executive to meet the constitutional two-thirds gender principle.
The application was filed by Katiba Institute, the Centre for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW), the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), Community Advocacy and Awareness Trust (Crawn Trust) and World March of Women–Kenya.
The organisations are challenging the President’s failure to reconstitute the Cabinet within the 120-day period set by the High Court in a judgment delivered on June 30, 2026.
That deadline expired on October 28, with the applicants arguing that the continued operation of the Cabinet amounts to disobedience of a binding court order.
The court has scheduled the matter for consideration by a three-judge bench on December 1, 2026. The respondents have been directed to file their responses ahead of the hearing.
Petitioners Want Cabinet Secretaries Stopped From Exercising Powers
In their application, the five organisations are seeking orders that would prevent Cabinet Secretaries from continuing to perform their official duties pending the determination of the dispute.
They want the court to suspend the Cabinet and bar Cabinet Secretaries from exercising the functions of their offices.
The petitioners are also seeking to stop the Secretary to the Cabinet from convening or servicing Cabinet meetings, recording decisions made during the meetings and communicating those decisions.
Another request targets the Controller of Budget, whom the organisations want restrained from approving payments for Cabinet Secretaries’ salaries, benefits and other expenditure relating to Cabinet operations, with effect from October 28.
The applicants further want the Attorney-General summoned urgently to explain why the President has not implemented the June judgment.
They are asking the court to declare that the failure to comply with the ruling amounts to wilful disobedience and contempt of court.
In a further request, the organisations want any punishment or personal liability against the President deferred until the end of his presidential term.
These are prayers contained in the application and have not been granted by the court.
Why the Court Ordered Ruto to Reconstitute His Cabinet
The latest application stems from a constitutional case in which the High Court found that the composition of Kenya’s Cabinet violated the two-thirds gender principle under Article 27(8) of the Constitution.
In its June 30 judgment, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Eric Ogola, Stephen Githinji and Jairus Ngaah directed the President to make Cabinet appointments that comply with the constitutional requirement within 120 days.
At the time, the court found that the Cabinet had 25 members, including seven women and 18 men, meaning women occupied approximately 28 per cent of the positions.
The judges held that at least nine members needed to be from the underrepresented gender to meet the constitutional threshold.
The ruling declared that Article 27(8) was immediately enforceable in relation to appointive bodies, including the Cabinet.
The October 28 deadline passed without the required Cabinet reconstitution, prompting the latest legal challenge.
Government Had Sought to Challenge the Earlier Judgment
The compliance dispute has also unfolded alongside efforts by the government to challenge the June ruling.
Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor sought to have the Court of Appeal suspend the judgment pending an intended appeal. However, the application was not certified as urgent, with the court directing the government to serve the respondents and provide proof of service.
The latest application now seeks to establish whether the President’s failure to implement the judgment amounts to contempt and whether the Cabinet should continue exercising its constitutional functions while the dispute remains unresolved.
The High Court’s decision to certify the application as urgent means the matter will receive priority consideration.
The three-judge bench is expected to consider the competing arguments when the matter comes up on December 1.
