Court nullifies Maraga’s advice to dissolve Parliament over gender rule

Former Chief Justice David Maraga, who has accused the government of enabling public fund theft through the eCitizen platform, citing findings from the Auditor-General’s report. (Photo: X/David Maraga)

By Carolyne Kubwa
Friday, June 5, 2026

Maraga had, in September 2020, advised President Uhuru to dissolve the 12th Parliament after the MPs repeatedly failed to pass laws aimed at implementing the constitutional requirement that no more than two-thirds of members of elective or appointive bodies be of the same gender.

The High Court has declared unconstitutional an advisory issued by former Chief Justice David Maraga recommending the dissolution of Parliament for failing to enact legislation implementing the constitutional two-thirds gender principle.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, a five-judge bench held that the advisory to former President Uhuru Kenyatta did not satisfy the procedural requirements set out in the Constitution and was therefore issued prematurely.

The bench, comprising Justices Tabitha Ouya, Patricia Nyaundi, Moses Ado, Lawrence Mugambi and Jairus Ngaah, found that critical constitutional steps had not been completed before the advisory was made.

Latest Stories

The advisory marked an unprecedented moment in Kenya’s constitutional history and sparked intense debate on the enforcement of gender equality provisions.

At the time, women occupied slightly above 21 per cent of seats in the National Assembly and 31 per cent in the Senate, figures that fell short of the constitutional threshold. In the current 13th Parliament, women hold approximately 23 per cent of seats in the National Assembly and 31.3 per cent in the Senate.

Former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi, who had supported efforts leading to the advisory, previously defended Maraga’s actions as a legitimate attempt to enforce constitutional compliance.

“Maraga and I did our part in securing the advisory to the President to dissolve Parliament for failure of compliance with and non-enactment of the two-thirds rule laws,” Havi said in an earlier statement.

With the court’s ruling, one of the most consequential constitutional disputes surrounding enforcement of the gender principle has been brought to a close, while the broader question of achieving compliance with the two-thirds gender rule remains unresolved.