The High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the removal of former Attorney General Justin Muturi, ruling that President William Ruto did not act unlawfully in appointing Dorcas Oduor as his successor.
The case, filed by Dr Magare Gikenyi and six others, questioned the legality of Muturi’s exit from office, claiming that he had been irregularly removed through an executive decision guised as a resignation.
Muturi served as Kenya's AG from October 2022 to July 2024, when he was moved from the powerful legal docket to the Public Service Ministry, where he, however, had a short stint. He was sacked from the position in March this year and replaced by Geoffrey Ruku.
According to court documents, the petitioners also alleged that the subsequent appointment of Oduor violated the Constitution and the Office of the Attorney General Act.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the court found that the petitioners failed to prove that Muturi’s departure was forced or unconstitutional.
The court noted that the respondents, led by the Attorney General’s office, presented credible evidence showing that Muturi voluntarily resigned on July 11, 2024.
“The court is persuaded that the evidence adduced by the respondents, including the resignation letter and the Gazette notice, stands as sufficient proof that the former Attorney General vacated office through resignation and not removal,” Justice Mugambi stated in his ruling.
The judge observed that the petitioners bore the burden of proof under Article 22 of the Constitution but failed to produce any document or witness contradicting the resignation claim.
Additionally, he held that mere suspicion or political interpretation of executive action could not substitute for evidence in constitutional litigation.
According to the ruling, once Muturi’s resignation was tendered and accepted by the President, the office of the Attorney General became vacant by operation of law, paving the way for the appointment of a replacement.
Further, the court dismissed the assertion that the President was obligated to involve Parliament or the Public Service Commission in confirming the vacancy.
The petitioners had also argued that the Gazette notice announcing the resignation was altered after public criticism, allegedly to sanitise the removal.
However, Justice Mugambi ruled that there was no admissible proof to show that any falsification occurred or that the President’s office acted in bad faith.
He further noted that the court could not invalidate the appointment of the current AG without a finding that the office had been unlawfully declared vacant.
