President William Ruto’s team of 21 advisers will continue in their roles after the Court of Appeal of Kenya temporarily halted a High Court ruling that had declared their offices unconstitutional.
A three-judge bench led by Justices William Korir, Hedwig Ong’udi, and Samson Okong’o delivered the decision in Nairobi on Friday, granting a stay of execution on the earlier judgment. The order allows the advisers to carry out their duties while the full appeal is pending.
The ruling comes as a relief to the Executive, which has been fighting to maintain the advisory positions following a High Court decision in January that nullified them.
Those affected include key figures such as economist David Ndii, National Security Advisor Monica Juma, and constitutional scholar Makau Mutua, along with 18 other officials overseeing areas from foreign relations to gender and intergovernmental coordination.
The appellate judges noted that immediate removal of the advisers could disrupt the operations of the Office of the President. They agreed with arguments presented by the Office of the Attorney General that the advisers were already performing public functions when the High Court issued its ruling.
“Declining to suspend the judgment could create a vacuum within the advisory structure that supports the President’s day-to-day work,” the judges observed.
The legal dispute originated from a petition filed by activists and civil society groups, including Katiba Institute. They argued that the advisory roles were established without following constitutional procedures and duplicated functions of Cabinet Secretaries and the Attorney General. Petitioners also claimed that maintaining the positions would be an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and an unconstitutional arrangement.
However, the Public Service Commission and the Attorney General contended that the appointments were lawful under the Public Service Commission Act. They stressed that the President has the authority to appoint personal staff to assist in executing constitutional duties.
“In the circumstances, we are convinced that the applicant has satisfied the two limbs for the grant of the order sought,” the judges stated. State legal counsel also emphasized that advisory roles and Cabinet positions serve separate but complementary functions.
Although the advisers remain in office for now, the appellate court made it clear that the constitutional questions behind the dispute remain unresolved. Given the public interest, the judges urged the President of the Court of Appeal to fast-track the appeal so the legality of the positions can be settled without delay.
As it stands, the status quo at State House continues, with the 21 advisers actively performing their duties while the government prepares for a decisive legal showdown that could define the scope of presidential power in creating public offices.
