The High Court has declared unconstitutional President William Ruto’s decision to establish a Presidential Task Force to conduct a forensic audit of Kenya’s public debt, handing the administration a significant legal setback over the limits of executive authority.
In a judgment delivered today Thursday, Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that the task force, created through Executive Order No. 4 of 2024, unlawfully duplicated the constitutional mandate of an independent office. The judge found that while the President has broad executive powers, those powers must remain within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
The ruling invalidates the Executive Order, which was published in Gazette Notice No. 8261 on July 5, 2024, and effectively disbands the task force.
Petition challenged task-force’s legality and appointment process
At the centre of the case was a petition arguing that the President had created a parallel body to carry out functions already assigned to an independent constitutional office. The petitioners also said the task force was formed without public participation and that its members were appointed through a process that fell short of constitutional standards on merit, transparency and inclusivity.
The State defended the move, arguing that the President was acting within his constitutional mandate by establishing an advisory body to support policy formulation, coordination and the discharge of executive functions.
Court says executive powers must remain within constitutional limits
Justice Mugambi rejected that argument, saying executive authority is not unlimited. Citing several provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 2, 129, 131, 132, 165 and 259, the judge said all public power must be exercised within the law.
The court also reaffirmed its role in reviewing executive actions that are alleged to violate the Constitution, while recognising the principle of separation of powers between the arms of government.
“The President’s executive authority must be exercised within constitutional limits,” the court held, finding that the task force unlawfully “duplicated and usurped” the functions of an independent constitutional office.
The judgment marks another reminder that executive decisions remain subject to judicial scrutiny where questions arise over their constitutionality. It also reinforces the constitutional independence of public institutions whose mandates are protected from executive interference.
The government had argued that the task force was intended to advise the Executive rather than replace any constitutional office. However, the court concluded that its assigned responsibilities went beyond an advisory role and overlapped with powers already provided for under the Constitution.
With the Executive Order now declared invalid, the future of any work undertaken by the task force remains uncertain unless the government successfully challenges the ruling on appeal.
About the Author
