Court of Appeal Suspends High Court Order on Ruto’s Advisors, Allowing Them to Remain in Office

President William Ruto has received a significant legal boost after the Court of Appeal of Kenya temporarily suspended a High Court decision that had ordered the removal of his 21-member Council of Advisors.

The ruling, delivered on Friday, means that the advisers will continue serving in their positions for now as the government’s appeal moves through the courts. 

Judges at the appellate court said removing the advisers immediately could interfere with the normal functioning of the President’s office.

The government, through the Office of the Attorney General, had challenged an earlier decision made by the High Court of Kenya.

In that earlier judgment, Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled that the appointment of the President’s 21 advisers did not meet constitutional requirements and therefore declared the positions unconstitutional.

Following the ruling, the Attorney General quickly moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to suspend the High Court judgment.

Government lawyers argued that implementing the decision immediately would cause confusion and disrupt the operations of the President’s office.

The appellate court agreed that there was a need to maintain stability while the legal issues are being reviewed.

Judges noted that the advisers play a role in supporting the President in areas such as policy coordination, strategy, and administration.

Because of this, the Court of Appeal decided to temporarily set aside the High Court ruling until the appeal filed by the Attorney General is fully heard and determined.

This means the advisers will remain in their roles as the court examines whether their appointments were lawful.

Legal experts say the case raises important constitutional questions about how advisory positions within the executive branch should be created.

The High Court had previously questioned whether the positions were established according to the law governing public offices.

However, the government maintains that the advisers are necessary to help the President carry out his responsibilities effectively.

Officials have argued that the team provides technical support and expert advice on key national matters.

Supporters of the administration say the decision by the Court of Appeal prevents disruptions in government operations.

They believe that removing the advisers abruptly could have slowed down important work being handled by the President’s office.

On the other hand, critics of the advisory positions insist that the Constitution must be strictly followed when creating government offices.

They argue that transparency and proper legal procedures are necessary to ensure accountability in public administration.

The Court of Appeal did not make a final determination on the legality of the advisers’ appointments.

Instead, the judges focused on whether the High Court decision should take effect immediately or wait until the appeal process is complete.