The Attorney General has asked the High Court to toss out a case challenging how presidential advisors were appointed, insisting the appointments were done legally and followed all the right procedures.
In documents filed in court, the AG, who was listed as the first respondent in the initial petition, argued that the lawsuit filed by Katiba Institute was "misconceived, speculative and legally unsustainable".
According to the AG, the petition was founded on a misunderstanding of the constitutional framework governing Presidential powers.
In May 2025, the lobby group filed a petition challenging the appointment of President Ruto's new advisors, arguing that the appointments were made in secret and without proper legal authority.
The group wanted the court to nullify the appointments, insisting that the President could not unilaterally create and fill offices without parliamentary approvals or clear legal provisions.
But in a counter-document, the AG cited Article 132(4)(a) of the Constitution, which expressly allows the President to establish offices within the public service on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission (PSC).
As per the constitution, the president did not necessarily require parliamentary approval or public participation.
“The appointment of advisors is an internal administrative process within the Executive Office of the President and does not trigger the obligation for public participation,” the AG stated.
Further, the AG cited Regulation 27 of the Public Service Commission Regulations 2020, which provides the legal framework for appointing advisors to the President, his deputy and Cabinet Secretaries.
In the court documents, the AG maintained that all necessary procedures were followed, adding that the appointments were more of an internal administrative matter.
The SRC also opposed the Katiba Institute's petition, arguing that the body had no role in the appointment of presidential advisors.
“The allegations raised in the petition do not implicate any function or power vested in the 3rd Respondent,” SRC's response stated.
