President Ruto fights to stay in office as activists seek his ouster over abuse of power
The petition, filed by 13 activists and the Kenya Bora Tuitakayo Citizens Association, accuses him of incompetence and gross misconduct.
Rights activists have sued President William Ruto, seeking a referendum to determine whether his term should be cut short over alleged constitutional violations and abuse of power.
The petition, filed by 13 activists and the Kenya Bora Tuitakayo Citizens Association, accuses him of incompetence and gross misconduct.
More To Read
The activists argue that the President has violated the Constitution through ethnically discriminatory appointments, abuse of power and governance failures that have eroded public trust.
They want the court to compel the electoral commission to hold a referendum on his removal.
However, President Ruto’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, insists the case is unconstitutional, improperly names the President and seeks an unlawful removal mechanism.
Ngatia argued before High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye that impeachment can only occur through Parliament, as outlined in Articles 144 and 145 of the Constitution.
President Ruto has asked the High Court to dismiss the constitutional petition lodged against him, terming it as fatally defective and lacking legal merit.
National Assembly powers
Ngatia contended that the petition is seeking to usurp constitutional powers reserved for the National Assembly on impeachment.
“The proposed petition is fatally incompetent for joinder of the President contrary to Article 143(2) of the Constitution,” Ngatia told the court.
He pointed out that the Constitution shields a sitting President from civil proceedings during their tenure, making the suit legally untenable.
The petitioners, in the case filed in August last year, want the court to order the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to conduct a referendum on whether President Ruto’s tenure should be terminated midterm. They cite gross violations of the Constitution, loss of public trust and legitimacy, abuse of power, and incompetence in governance as grounds for his removal.
The activists further allege that President Ruto has made ethnically biased appointments, undermining national cohesion and violating constitutional provisions on inclusivity in public service.
Legally untenable
Ngatia dismissed the petition as legally untenable, stating that the activists are attempting to navigate “uncharted waters”.
He asserted that the removal of a President can only be done through impeachment by Parliament.
“Removal of the President from office under the Constitution of Kenya can only be by way of impeachment. The process is based on grounds of incapacity through a motion tabled by a Member of Parliament as envisaged under Articles 144 and 145 of the Constitution,” Ngatia argued.
He maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case as it seeks to bypass the constitutional provisions on impeachment.
“There is a constitutional structure on the removal of a President from office, and the petitioners are attempting to avoid that structure,” he said.
Ngatia further criticised the activists for converting the impeachment mechanism into an adversarial court process, which he described as a “dangerous pastime”.
He also dismissed claims that the President acted unconstitutionally by deploying the military to quell anti-government protests in June last year, saying the matter had already been litigated in another case involving the Law Society of Kenya and the Attorney General.
In their submissions, the petitioners alleged that since assuming office in September 2022, President Ruto has violated the Constitution at least 30 times.
Sovereign power
Their lawyer, Kibe Mungai, argued that the Constitution allows citizens to exercise their sovereign power directly, including removing a President through a referendum.
“The petitioners are not seeking the removal of the President through a judicial process. We are asking the court to make a finding that the President has violated the Constitution. It is the business of the court to declare that a person has violated the Constitution,” Mungai said.
He added that the case is about holding public office occupants accountable.
On the question of suing the President personally despite constitutional immunity, Mungai argued that since the matter pertains to impeachment, the activists could not have sued the Attorney General as is common in other litigations.
“The Attorney General cannot represent the President in such a case,” he said.
The ruling on the petition is scheduled for May 22, 2025.
Top Stories Today
