Court Upholds Ruto’s Appointment of ODM Leaders to Cabinet
The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto acted within the Constitution when he appointed leaders affiliated with the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to serve in his Cabinet.
The decision followed a petition that sought to stop the appointments, arguing that bringing opposition politicians into government weakened Kenya’s constitutional order and undermined the country’s multi-party democracy.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, July 7, a three-judge bench sitting at the Milimani Law Courts dismissed the petition in a majority decision of two judges against one.
The case challenged the nomination, parliamentary vetting, and eventual appointment of several ODM politicians after President Ruto dissolved his Cabinet in July 2024 during the peak of the nationwide anti-Finance Bill protests.
The petitioners, led by Katiba Institute and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, argued that appointing opposition leaders into the Cabinet blurred the line between the government and the opposition, which they claimed was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
However, the majority of the judges found that the Constitution does not prevent the President from appointing members of opposition political parties to Cabinet positions.
According to the court, political affiliation alone cannot be used as a reason to disqualify someone from becoming a Cabinet Secretary.
The judges explained that as long as a nominee meets all the constitutional and legal qualifications required for the office, their membership in a political party does not automatically make the appointment unlawful.
The ruling therefore confirmed that President Ruto’s appointments of National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi, Cooperatives Cabinet Secretary Wycliffe Oparanya, Energy Cabinet Secretary Opiyo Wandayi, Mining Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho, and Gender Cabinet Secretary Beatrice Askul were constitutional.
At the time of their appointments, all of them were associated with the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), one of Kenya’s leading opposition parties.
The judges further explained that Kenya’s Constitution does not establish an official opposition as a constitutional institution. Because of this, there is no legal provision stopping the President from selecting qualified individuals from opposition parties to serve in government.
The court noted that Cabinet appointments are based on constitutional requirements and presidential discretion rather than political party affiliation.
The court also examined the legality of President Ruto’s decision to reappoint some Cabinet Secretaries after dissolving the Cabinet in 2024. The judges ruled that the President acted within the law when he reappointed several former Cabinet members.
They stated that the dissolution of the Cabinet was an administrative and political reorganisation of government and should not be interpreted as disciplinary action against the affected Cabinet Secretaries.
According to the judgment, the removal of Cabinet Secretaries under Article 152(5)(b) of the Constitution does not permanently disqualify them from being appointed again in the future.
The judges observed that there was no evidence showing that the reappointed Cabinet Secretaries had violated Chapter Six of the Constitution, which deals with leadership, integrity, and ethical conduct for public officials. Without such violations, the President remained legally free to nominate them again.
The ruling is expected to provide important legal guidance on the President’s powers to appoint Cabinet Secretaries and the role political parties play in government appointments.
It also reinforces the court’s interpretation that political affiliation alone is not enough to invalidate a Cabinet nomination under the Constitution.
Even though the court upheld the appointments of ODM leaders and the reappointment of former Cabinet Secretaries, it comes only days after another High Court ruling declared President Ruto’s current Cabinet unconstitutional for failing to comply with the constitutional two-thirds gender principle.
In that separate judgment, the court found that the Executive had not achieved the required level of gender representation despite several Cabinet reshuffles and appointments made over the past year.
The bench, made up of Justices Eric Ogola, Jairus Ngaah, and Stephen Githinji, ruled that the government had fallen short of meeting the constitutional threshold on gender balance.
As a result, President Ruto was directed to reconstitute the Cabinet within 120 days to ensure it fully complies with the Constitution.
The latest decision means that while the inclusion of opposition leaders in the Cabinet has been declared lawful, the President must still address the issue of gender representation before the expiry of the court’s deadline.
Join WANTAM Official WhatsApp Channel to stay updated on time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30
