High Court Strikes Down President Ruto’s Special Compensation Team, Reaffirms KNCHR’s Sole Authority on Victims’ Rights
NAIROBI - In a landmark ruling that underscores the boundaries of executive power in human rights matters, the High Court has nullified President William Ruto's establishment of a special advisory team tasked with handling compensation for victims of past human rights violations. The decision, delivered on Thursday, December 4, 2025, firmly entrenches the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) as the exclusive constitutional body responsible for such processes, rejecting any parallel executive interventions.
The court's three-judge bench declared the presidential directive unconstitutional, arguing that it encroached on KNCHR's statutory mandate and disrupted the established framework for transitional justice. At the heart of the case was President Ruto's November 21, 2025, assent to two bills aimed at addressing historical injustices, which included the formation of this advisory team. Intended to provide technical guidance and accelerate payouts to affected individuals, the team was positioned as an administrative efficiency measure by the State. However, the court viewed it as a clear overreach, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns KNCHR the sole authority to initiate, coordinate, and oversee all aspects of victim identification, harm assessment, and compensation recommendations.
Justice Mugure Thande, delivering the judgment, articulated the core reasoning with precision. KNCHR is the only body empowered to initiate, coordinate and oversee measures relating to the identification of victims, assessment of harm, and recommendation of appropriate compensation, she stated. The ruling highlighted how the executive's creation of a duplicate entity not only undermined institutional independence but also risked injecting confusion into ongoing processes and paving the way for undue influence. Good intentions cannot cure a constitutional defect, the judges added, making it clear that even well-meaning efforts must adhere to legal structures to avoid eroding the separation of powers.
The petition challenging the team's legality was brought by a coalition of civil society organizations and human rights advocates, who contended that the move lacked any firm legal foundation and threatened to sideline KNCHR's expertise. Respondents, including the Attorney General's office and President Ruto himself, defended the initiative as a pragmatic step to expedite redress for long-suffering victims. Despite these arguments, the court sided unequivocally with the petitioners, ordering the immediate dissolution of the advisory team and the transfer of its preliminary report to KNCHR for comprehensive review.
This directive carries profound implications for how Kenya addresses its legacy of state-sponsored abuses, from post-election violence to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Victims' groups have long awaited structured compensation, and the ruling ensures that KNCHR remains the central arbiter, free from executive duplication. It also serves as a cautionary note to future administrations against bypassing independent commissions in sensitive human rights domains.
To facilitate a smooth transition, the court has imposed a strict 30-day timeline on KNCHR to evaluate the transferred report, assess its alignment with constitutional standards, and implement any required modifications. Failure to comply within this period will render the original presidential proclamations void, effectively nullifying the advisory body's work entirely. This enforcement mechanism aims to prevent delays while safeguarding procedural integrity.
Legal experts and activists hailed the verdict as a victory for constitutionalism in Kenya's evolving democracy. It reaffirms that human rights protections are not subject to ad hoc executive whims but must flow through designated, independent channels. As KNCHR gears up for its mandated role, attention now turns to how swiftly it can operationalize compensation mechanisms, potentially unlocking relief for thousands of claimants who have endured years of bureaucratic limbo.
The decision arrives amid broader national conversations on accountability, following recent legislative pushes to confront historical grievances. While the State has yet to issue an official response, the ruling is expected to prompt internal recalibrations in how executive actions intersect with human rights bodies. For victims and their advocates, it represents not just a legal win, but a step toward restoring trust in institutions designed to deliver justice.