Our Kenya

Ruto and the Judiciary

4 min read

The relationship between William Ruto and the Kenyan judiciary during his presidency was marked by early confrontation, strategic accommodation, and periodic attacks on judicial independence. Unlike his predecessor Uhuru Kenyatta, who openly defied court orders and called judges "crooks," Ruto's approach was more sophisticated. He complied with court rulings when necessary, appealed when possible, and used public rhetoric to delegitimize judges when they ruled against him. The judiciary, led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, found itself in the uncomfortable position of being both a check on executive power and a target of executive pressure.

The first major confrontation came in January 2024, when the High Court blocked the deployment of Kenyan police to Haiti, ruling that the executive had overstepped its authority by deploying officers without proper parliamentary and judicial oversight. Ruto's government immediately appealed, and the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling within weeks. The speed of the reversal raised eyebrows, with some legal analysts suggesting that the judiciary was reluctant to stand in the way of a foreign policy initiative that had strong backing from the United States and the UN. The Kenya Haiti Mission proceeded, but the episode demonstrated the judiciary's willingness to, at least temporarily, challenge executive overreach.

The Ruto and Affordable Housing Levy case was another flashpoint. In September 2023, the High Court suspended the housing levy after trade unions and civil society groups challenged its constitutionality. The government appealed, and in November 2023, the Court of Appeal allowed the levy to proceed pending a final ruling by the Supreme Court. In July 2024, the Supreme Court issued a split decision upholding the levy but imposing conditions that required the government to restructure it as a genuine savings scheme rather than a disguised tax. The ruling was a compromise, and both sides claimed partial victory. The judiciary had shown it could push back on government policy, but it had also given the government enough room to continue implementing the levy.

The most dramatic moment in Ruto's relationship with the judiciary came during and after the Finance Bill 2024 and Gen Z Uprising. As protests escalated and police killed dozens of demonstrators, human rights groups filed urgent court applications demanding investigations into the killings and orders to prevent further violence. The judiciary issued several orders restraining police from using excessive force, but these were largely ignored on the ground. The courts also faced criticism for not moving fast enough to hold the government accountable. Some judges reportedly received threats, and there were concerns that the executive was using intelligence agencies to intimidate judicial officers.

Ruto's public rhetoric toward the judiciary was carefully calibrated. He avoided the open contempt that Uhuru Kenyatta had displayed, instead framing his criticisms in terms of "judicial activism" and the need for judges to respect the separation of powers. In several public speeches, he suggested that the judiciary was overstepping its mandate by issuing injunctions that delayed government programs, particularly in infrastructure and housing. He also floated the idea of judicial reforms, including changes to the appointment process for judges, which many saw as a veiled threat to pack the courts with loyalists.

Chief Justice Martha Koome, who was appointed in 2021, found herself in a difficult position. She had to defend judicial independence while also managing a judiciary that was under-resourced, politically exposed, and internally divided. Koome was cautious in her public statements, avoiding direct confrontation with Ruto while asserting the judiciary's constitutional role. But her measured approach frustrated some legal activists who wanted the judiciary to take a more aggressive stance against executive overreach.

By 2024, the Ruto-judiciary relationship had settled into an uneasy equilibrium. The courts continued to rule against the government on some issues, particularly in cases involving individual rights and procedural fairness. But on major policy questions, such as the housing levy, the IMF-driven austerity program, and foreign deployments, the judiciary was reluctant to block the executive outright. It was a pragmatic compromise, but it also raised questions about whether the judiciary could truly function as an independent check on power in an era of shrinking political space.

See Also

Sources

  1. "High Court blocks Kenya police deployment to Haiti," The Guardian, January 26, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/kenya-court-blocks-haiti-deployment
  2. "Supreme Court ruling on housing levy: A compromise," Kenya Law Review, July 2024. https://kenyalawreview.org/2024/07/supreme-court-housing-levy-compromise/
  3. "CJ Martha Koome on judicial independence," Daily Nation, September 2024. https://nation.africa/kenya/news/cj-koome-judicial-independence-4587321
  4. "Ruto and the judiciary: An uneasy relationship," The Elephant, October 2024. https://www.theelephant.info/features/2024/10/12/ruto-judiciary-uneasy-relationship/

Backlinks