Court Dismisses Petition Seeking to Reinstate Former Attorney General Justin Muturi
The High Court has thrown out a case challenging the removal of former Attorney General (AG) Justin Muturi, ruling that President William Ruto acted within the law when he appointed Dorcas Oduor to take over the position.
The case was filed by Dr. Magare Gikenyi alongside six others, who questioned the legality of Muturi’s exit from office. They argued that his departure was not voluntary but instead a disguised dismissal carried out through an executive decision presented as a resignation.
Muturi had been serving as Kenya’s Attorney General since October 2022 until July 2024, when he was transferred from the powerful AG’s office to the Ministry of Public Service. His tenure in the new ministry was brief, as he was dismissed in March 2025 and replaced by Geoffrey Ruku.
According to the court documents, the petitioners also claimed that the appointment of Dorcas Oduor as the new Attorney General violated the Constitution and the provisions of the Office of the Attorney General Act.
However, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the court ruled that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that Muturi’s exit was forced or unconstitutional.
Justice Mugambi stated that the respondents, led by the current Attorney General’s office, provided credible documentation proving that Muturi resigned willingly on July 11, 2024.
“The court is convinced that the evidence presented by the respondents — including the resignation letter and the official Gazette notice — provides adequate proof that the former Attorney General left office through resignation and not through unlawful removal,” the judge said in his ruling.
Justice Mugambi further explained that under Article 22 of the Constitution, the burden of proof rests on those bringing a petition before the court. He pointed out that the petitioners failed to produce any document or witness to contradict the claim that Muturi had voluntarily stepped down.
He emphasized that mere speculation, political opinions, or public perceptions cannot be used as a substitute for concrete evidence in constitutional cases.
The ruling also clarified that once Muturi’s resignation was formally received and accepted by President Ruto, the office of the Attorney General became vacant by law, which legally allowed the President to appoint a successor.
In addition, the judge dismissed arguments that the President was required to consult Parliament or the Public Service Commission before confirming the vacancy in the AG’s office.
The petitioners had also claimed that the Gazette notice announcing Muturi’s resignation was altered following public criticism, allegedly to make the removal appear legitimate.
However, Justice Mugambi found no credible evidence to support those allegations. He ruled that there was no proof of any falsification or bad faith on the part of the President’s office in handling the matter.
He concluded by stating that the court had no legal grounds to overturn the appointment of the current Attorney General, Dorcas Oduor, since there was no evidence that the office had been unlawfully declared vacant.
In summary, the High Court upheld the legality of both Muturi’s resignation and Oduor’s appointment, affirming that President Ruto acted in accordance with the law and constitutional procedures.
Join Government Official WhatsApp Channel To Stay Updated On time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30
