Katiba Institute Urges Court to Reject Stay Sought by Ruto’s Advisors

By : Mweru Mbugua 

Katiba Institute has asked the High Court to dismiss an application seeking a stay of judgment filed by 21 advisers to President William Ruto whose appointments were recently declared unconstitutional

In submissions filed in court, the institute argues that the advisers have no legal grounds to seek a stay or review of the ruling, insisting that the High Court delivered a final judgment that can only be challenged through an appeal to a higher court

Katiba maintains that once a court has issued a final decision, it lacks jurisdiction to reopen or reconsider the matter. The institute warns that allowing such an application would amount to the court sitting in judgment over its own ruling

“A party cannot, through the guise of an application which is in substance and effect an appeal, invite this Court to reopen, reconsider, or sit in judgment over its own final decision,” Katiba stated in its response

Through its lawyer, Malidzo Nyawa, the institute further argues that the advisers have failed to demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer if the stay is not granted. Katiba also dismisses claims that the absence of the advisers would disrupt government operations

According to the institute, the Executive has functioned within the constitutional framework since 2010 without the disputed advisory offices, and no evidence has been presented to show that their absence would lead to serious consequences for public service delivery

“The President and the Executive have been able to deliver public services within the framework established by the Constitution before the creation of the contested offices,” Katiba noted, questioning what harm would occur while Kenyans await the outcome of any appeal

 Also read : PSG Overcome Hakimi Red Card to Defeat Strasbourg and Reclaim Ligue 1 Summit

Katiba also told the court that if there were genuine concerns about disruption to government operations, the application should have been brought by the Attorney General rather than the advisers themselves

“The application is clearly intended to serve the personal interests of the Interested Parties, not the Executive,” the institute argued

The High Court had earlier ruled that the creation and staffing of the advisers’ offices violated the Constitution, rendering the appointments null and void