Legal ForumExample Category: LSK Kajiado ForumCourt Clears Ruto’s Inclusion of …Post Reply

Post Reply: Court Clears Ruto’s Inclusion of External Advisors in Cabinet Meetings

<blockquote><div class="quotetitle">Quote from <a class="profile-link highlight-moderator" href="https://lawguide.co.ke/understanding-law/legal-forum/profile/lawyer/">Lawyer</a> on August 15, 2025, 9:04 am</div><div id="pl-7580"  class="panel-layout" ><div id="pg-7580-0"  class="panel-grid panel-no-style" ><div id="pgc-7580-0-0"  class="panel-grid-cell"  data-weight="1" ><div id="panel-7580-0-0-0" class="so-panel widget widget_sow-editor panel-first-child panel-last-child" data-index="0" data-style="{&quot;background_image_attachment&quot;:false,&quot;background_display&quot;:&quot;tile&quot;,&quot;background_image_size&quot;:&quot;full&quot;,&quot;background_image_opacity&quot;:&quot;100&quot;,&quot;border_thickness&quot;:&quot;1px&quot;}" ><div
			
			class="so-widget-sow-editor so-widget-sow-editor-base"
			
		>
<div class="siteorigin-widget-tinymce textwidget">
	<p dir="ltr" data-pm-slice="1 1 []">On August 14, 2025, the High Court of Kenya dismissed a petition challenging President William Ruto’s decision to invite external advisors to Cabinet meetings, ruling that the occasional participation of non-Cabinet members is constitutional. The decision, delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, addressed a legal challenge filed by lawyer Charles Mugane, who argued that allowing political and policy advisors to attend Cabinet sessions undermined principles of good governance.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The petition specifically contested a June 27, 2023, decision that permitted four individuals, former United Democratic Alliance Secretary General Cleophas Malala, economist David Ndii, diplomat Monica Juma, and lawyer Harriette Chiggai, to join Cabinet meetings. Mugane’s argument centered on the claim that their presence violated the constitutional framework governing the composition and operation of the Cabinet.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Justice Mugambi’s ruling clarified that Article 152 of the Kenyan Constitution defines the composition of the Cabinet but does not explicitly prohibit the President or Cabinet from inviting experts or advisors to provide technical or policy input on specific matters. The judge emphasized that such invitations, when made on an occasional basis, fall within the President’s discretionary powers. However, he cautioned that permanent inclusion of non-Cabinet members in Cabinet meetings would violate Article 152(1), as it would effectively expand the Cabinet beyond its constitutional limits.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The court found that Mugane failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the four named advisors were permanent attendees of Cabinet meetings. The petitioner relied heavily on newspaper reports, which Justice Mugambi dismissed as secondary evidence inadequate to substantiate the claims. The judge noted that the advisors, Ndii, Malala, Juma, and Chiggai, had denied being regular participants in Cabinet sessions, and Mugane could not counter their assertions with concrete proof.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Justice Mugambi drew a comparison to a 2020 case involving General Mohammed Badi, the former Nairobi Metropolitan Services boss, whose regular inclusion in Cabinet meetings under former President Uhuru Kenyatta was confirmed by official State House communication and an oath of secrecy. In contrast, no such formal documentation or announcement supported Mugane’s allegations in the current case. The judge highlighted that the absence of official communication or a written Cabinet decision distinguished the two cases.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The ruling also addressed broader constitutional principles, with Justice Mugambi stating that courts should not interpret legal gaps in a way that restricts the President or Cabinet’s discretion on internal operational matters within the Executive Branch, provided such actions remain within constitutional boundaries. This perspective underscores the court’s reluctance to interfere in executive functions unless clear violations are proven.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The petition’s dismissal marks a significant legal victory for President Ruto, affirming his authority to seek external expertise in Cabinet deliberations when necessary. The court’s decision reinforces the flexibility of the Executive to engage advisors on a case-by-case basis, particularly for complex policy or technical issues, without breaching constitutional mandates.</p>
<p dir="ltr">No orders were made regarding costs, indicating that each party will bear its own legal expenses. The ruling sets a precedent for future challenges to executive discretion in Cabinet operations, emphasizing the need for petitioners to provide robust evidence rather than relying on media reports or assumptions.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This decision comes amid ongoing public and legal scrutiny of President Ruto’s administration, particularly regarding governance and accountability. The inclusion of external advisors has been a contentious issue, with critics arguing it could dilute the Cabinet’s constitutional integrity, while supporters maintain that expert input enhances decision-making on critical national issues.</p>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br>

Cancel

Legal Forums

Post Reply: Court Clears Ruto’s Inclusion of External Advisors in Cabinet Meetings

Recent Posts

Crisis at Kenyatta National Hospital: Senators Demand Action on Overcrowding and Security Failures

Court Orders Equal Pay for UHC Nurses Amid Absorption Plan