President William Ruto has suffered a major setback after the High Court ordered the immediate stoppage of salaries for 21 advisers serving in the Office of the President, ruling that their appointments were unconstitutional, illegal and a waste of public resources.
In a damning judgment delivered, the court found that the advisers had been appointed without constitutional backing, competitive recruitment or parliamentary approval, effectively rendering their offices illegal.
As a result, the court barred any further payment of public funds to the advisers and ordered a comprehensive audit of all offices created within the Executive since 2010.
The ruling follows a petition challenging the legality of advisory positions that critics say had ballooned into a costly parallel government.
According to court findings, taxpayers may have lost up to Sh2.44 billion through salaries, benefits and operational costs linked to the advisory offices.
High Court Judge Bahati Manmuya described the appointments as “secretive, unprocedural and a brazen abuse of public funds,” noting that the advisers strutted the corridors of power, spoke in the President’s name and pocketed millions without lawful authority.
Among those affected are members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, national security advisers, political and governance advisers, and sector-based advisers in food security, livestock, women’s rights and youth empowerment.
All 21 individuals are now barred from drawing salaries or accessing public resources.
While acknowledging that the President may have acted in good faith, the court warned that good intentions cannot override the Constitution.
“The actions, decisions and omissions in the process exhibit multiple and severe breaches of the Constitution,” the judge ruled.
The decision delivers a significant political and administrative blow to President Ruto’s leadership style, which has relied heavily on advisory structures.
The ruling is expected to trigger further scrutiny of executive spending and reignite debate over the growing burden of advisers on the public wage bill.