Ruto Criticises Judiciary in Front of CJ Koome, Says Some Judges Are Undermining Government Agenda
President William Ruto has openly criticised the Judiciary over a series of court rulings that have blocked or overturned key government policies, arguing that some judges are going beyond their mandate and interfering with decisions made by the electorate.
Speaking on Wednesday at State House, Nairobi, during the swearing-in ceremony of newly appointed Court of Appeal judges, the President raised his concerns in the presence of senior judicial leaders.
Among those in attendance were Chief Justice Martha Koome and Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. Ruto said several recent court decisions appear to conflict with the authority given to his administration by Kenyans during the 2022 General Election.
The President warned that such rulings are not just legal matters but have serious consequences for ordinary citizens. He said some judgments are delaying or blocking policies meant to improve people’s lives.
According to Ruto, while the Judiciary has an important role in safeguarding the Constitution, some decisions seem to cross the line into what he described as judicial overreach.
“I have consistently spoken about this issue and questioned court decisions that appear to interfere with important public policies,” Ruto said.
“Some of these rulings look like they go beyond interpretation of the law and move into areas that frustrate the work of the Executive. Others have even described this as a form of tyranny.”
At the same time, the President dismissed claims that his administration ignores court orders. He insisted that despite disagreements with some rulings, the government has always complied with judicial decisions, even when they are inconvenient or frustrating.
Ruto also revealed that he plans to formally seek legal clarification from the courts regarding the status of policies drawn from a political party’s manifesto. He questioned what happens when policies endorsed by voters are later blocked through legal challenges.
“When people vote for a manifesto and give it legitimacy as a policy document, we need to understand its place in law,” he said. “If implementing that manifesto is later stopped in a way that harms millions who voted for it, then we need clarity.
If the manifesto has no legal weight, then perhaps we should stop wasting time preparing one.”
He explained that his intention is not to undermine the courts but to protect government programmes that reflect the will of the voters.
Ruto said he would approach the Judiciary respectfully to help define how far a manifesto can go once implementation begins.
The President’s remarks come amid several legal setbacks for his administration. Most recently, the High Court declared unconstitutional the appointment of 21 presidential advisors named in 2025. Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued orders barring the government from paying salaries or benefits to the advisors.
The court ruled that the appointments were made without involving the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), which is legally required to assess the financial impact of such positions. As a result, all 21 advisors were ordered to immediately stop holding office, dealing a major blow to the President’s advisory structure.
In another case, the High Court in December temporarily halted the implementation of the proposed National Infrastructure Fund. The fund, which Ruto has strongly supported, is meant to raise money for major development projects and drive economic growth.
The suspension followed a constitutional petition filed by Dr Margaret Gikenyi, J. Benjamin, Eliud Matindi, and others. The petitioners argued that the fund violated provisions of the Constitution, prompting the court to stop its rollout pending further hearings.
Earlier, in November, the Judiciary also nullified a set of Executive Orders issued by President Ruto that sought to overhaul hiring practices in state corporations.
The orders had introduced new rules requiring state corporations to seek approval from the Cabinet Secretary and the State Corporations Advisory Committee before recruiting staff, making appointments, or changing employment terms.
However, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) challenged the orders, arguing that they undermined the constitutional role of the Public Service Commission (PSC) as provided under Article 234.
According to LSK, the orders opened the door to political interference in public hiring, threatening merit-based recruitment, professionalism, and independence in state institutions.
These rulings have added to growing tension between the Executive and the Judiciary, with President Ruto now calling for a clearer legal framework to balance court oversight with the implementation of voter-backed government policies.
Join Tutam Official WhatsApp Channel to stay updated on time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30
