High Court declares Ruto's cabinet unconstitutional: Find out why

The High Court has ruled that President William Ruto’s Cabinet appointments failed to comply with the constitutional two-thirds gender rule and has declared the appointments null and void.

In its ruling on June 30, 2026, Justices Eric Ogola and Anthony Mrima Githinji found the composition of the Cabinet to be unconstitutional under Articles 27(8) and 81(b) of the Constitution, which require that no more than two-thirds of members of appointive bodies be of the same gender.

They contended that the Secretary to the Cabinet, an office established under Article 154 of the Constitution, is not a member of the Cabinet and therefore cannot be counted when determining whether the Cabinet satisfies requirements on gender representation, regional balance, and inclusivity.

The ruling arose from consolidated petitions challenging the President’s decision to reappoint some Cabinet Secretaries after dissolving the Cabinet in July 2024, as well as the overall composition of the Cabinet in light of the constitutional requirement for gender representation 

In its majority decision, the court agreed, holding that the Secretary to the Cabinet is not part of the Cabinet for constitutional purposes and that the current Cabinet, when properly computed, fails to meet the constitutional two-thirds gender requirement.

Having found that the Cabinet does not comply with the constitutional two-thirds gender rule, the judges directed President William Ruto to reconstitute the Cabinet within 120 days to ensure compliance with Article 27 of the Constitution.

The High Court ruled that Ruto’s Cabinet, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional for failing to comply with the Constitution’s two-thirds gender principle, in decision delivered by Justices Eric Ogola and Anthony Githinji.

In its ruling, the court found that key constitutional guidelines, including the transmission of court orders to both Parliament and the Attorney General as required under Article 261(6)(b), had not been fully adhered to at the time the advisory was issued.

The petition challenging President William Ruto’s Cabinet appointments raised several constitutional questions regarding the exercise of presidential power and the composition of the Cabinet.

The court first held that it has jurisdiction to review presidential appointments and dismissals, rejecting the argument that the matter was purely political.

It also found that President Ruto acted within his constitutional powers in reappointing Cabinet Secretaries following the dissolution of the Cabinet in July 2024.

The court then ruled that the Secretary to the Cabinet cannot be counted in determining compliance. It further considered whether the Cabinet reflects Kenya’s diversity and whether the National Assembly complied with constitutional requirements on public participation during the approval process.

According to Articles 27(8) and 81(b) of the Kenyan Constitution, the State is required to enact legislation and take other measures to ensure that no more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies are of the same gender.

The petitioners argued that President Ruto’s Cabinet composition since 2022 had consistently fallen short of this constitutional threshold, despite repeated judicial pronouncements.

The ruling comes just weeks after a five-judge High Court bench nullified former Chief Justice David Maraga’s 2020 advisory seeking the dissolution of Parliament for failing to implement the two-thirds gender rule,