How courts are reshaping Ruto government

Since the 2010 Constitution, courts have moved beyond resolving disputes between individuals and the State. Through constitutional judgments, especially from the Judicial Review and Constitutional & Human Rights Divisions, judges have increasingly tested government actions against the supreme law and, where necessary, stopped them.

That power now extends beyond individual rights to questions of how public offices are created, how state corporations manage staff, whether Parliament followed the right procedures, how counties impose charges and whether procurement rules were lawfully made.

Recent judgments show courts increasingly intervening in areas traditionally left to the Executive and Parliament, including public appointments, taxation, procurement, labour rights, digital rights, pension deductions and presidential powers.

One prominent example is the January 2026 High Court judgment declaring the creation of 21 offices of advisers to President William Ruto unconstitutional.

The court found failures involving the Public Service Commission, public participation, fiscal analysis and statutory procedures, and quashed the appointments. The offices had been intended to provide specialised expertise and advice to help deliver the administration’s agenda, even as President Ruto had earlier pledged to cut the number of government advisers by 50 per cent as part of austerity measures.