Economist David Ndii and other presidential advisors are in trouble after the High Court, on Thursday, declared the creation of their offices in President William Ruto’s administration unconstitutional, dealing a significant legal and political blow to the Executive.
Court Declares Appointments Void
The ruling, delivered on January 22, 2026, by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, concluded that the advisers’ positions and the subsequent appointments violated constitutional and statutory provisions governing public office appointments. According to the judgment, the Executive failed to comply with requirements under the Public Service Commission (PSC) Act and related public service laws, effectively rendering the offices and appointments invalid from the outset.
In a sweeping decision, the court held that the advisers’ offices had no legal effect, quashed all related decisions, and ordered an immediate halt to the payment of salaries. The advisers had collectively been paid more than KSh 2.44 billion since their appointments — funds now frozen pending further review.
Major Figures Affected
Among those affected are high-profile figures such as Ndii, legal expert Makau Mutua, and former police chief Joseph Boinnet — all of whom had been serving as presidential advisers under the controversial structure. The court’s decision also mandates that the Attorney General and Public Service Commission take steps to reverse or regularise any actions tied to the advisers’ roles.
Legal and Political Implications
The ruling emerged from a petition filed by the Katiba Institute, which argued that the Executive bypassed the PSC and ignored necessary oversight mechanisms during the appointments. The judgment underscored that public service positions cannot be established or filled without adherence to constitutional safeguards and statutory processes.
Political analysts say the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the Ruto administration, especially as Kenya gears up for the 2027 general elections. By invalidating the advisers’ roles, the court highlighted deeper questions about executive authority, accountability and the limits of presidential discretion. Critics of the administration have seized on the decision as evidence of institutional checks and balances — a reminder that even the highest offices are bound by law.
Reactions and Next Steps
Reactions from political circles have been swift. Opposition leaders describe the ruling as a victory for constitutionalism, while supporters of the government argue that the decision opens a window for reforms in how advisers are appointed and regulated. The presidency is yet to issue an official statement on whether it will appeal the ruling or seek legislative fixes to address the legal gaps identified by the court.
For now, the decision stands as a major political development in Kenya’s 2026 landscape, reinforcing judicial independence and raising fresh questions about executive governance in the lead-up to the next elections.