Court dismisses petition to bar President Ruto's advisers from Cabinet meetings

The High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to bar four presidential advisers from attending Cabinet meetings, citing lack of credible evidence to prove they were permanent attendees.

The respondents were Presidential Economic Adviser David Ndii, National Security Adviser Monica Juma, Women’s Rights Adviser Harriet Chiggai, and former UDA Secretary General Cleophas Malala.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that petitioner Charles Mugane, a lawyer, relied solely on newspaper reports rather than primary documentation to challenge President William Ruto’s Executive Order No. 2 of 2023. The petition alleged the order allowed the four to sit in on Cabinet proceedings.

“A newspaper report is secondary evidence… it is not reliable as it can be prone to manipulation,” Justice Mugambi stated, noting that Article 153(1) of the Constitution requires Cabinet decisions to be in writing — and none was produced in court.

The judge acknowledged that granting non-members permanent Cabinet attendance would be unconstitutional, but clarified that occasional invitations to advisers or experts were within the President’s discretion.

Mugane and a co-petitioner had argued that such inclusion breached Article 152, undermined governance, and bypassed parliamentary oversight. They sought to have the practice declared unconstitutional.

The advisers denied the claims, with Malala stating none had attended regularly, and the advisers insisting any participation was purely advisory and within the President’s constitutional mandate under Article 131. They cited precedents from the US, UK, and Canada, where advisers are occasionally invited to high-level meetings without being Cabinet members.

The court dismissed the consolidated petitions for lack of evidence and issued no order on costs.