2 July 2026 – Nairobi, Kenya

Historic ruling declares Cabinet violates Constitution’s two-thirds gender principle, but court upholds other aspects of controversial 2024 Cabinet reconstitution 

The High Court of Kenya has declared President Ruto’s Cabinet unconstitutional because it violates the two-thirds gender principle in Article 27(8) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and has ordered the President to remedy the violation within 120 days by 28 October 2026. A three-judge bench at Malindi (Justices Ogola, Githinji, and Ngaah) delivered the judgment on 30 June 2026 in Consolidated Constitutional Petition No. E015 of 2024, in which Katiba Institute was the 2nd Petitioner. 

The case arose from the events of July 2024. On the back of a nationwide popular movement demanding accountability, President Ruto dissolved his Cabinet on 11 July 2024, citing public concern about its responsiveness, accountability, and performance – and then renominated most of the same individuals within eight days, without giving reasons. Four consolidated petitions, filed by eleven Petitioners – civil society organisations, human rights bodies, and individuals – challenged the reconstituted Cabinet on several fronts: its gender composition, the reappointment of the dismissed Cabinet Secretaries, the accessibility of the parliamentary vetting process, and the appointment of sitting opposition leaders to the Executive. 

The Gender Ruling: A Landmark Victory for Women’s Rights 

The Cabinet – the President, Deputy President, Attorney-General, and 22 Cabinet Secretaries – has only 7 women among its 25 members: 28%, against a constitutional maximum of two-thirds of one gender. The court rejected the government’s two escape routes. First, the court held that Article 27(8) is not aspirational but binds appointive bodies immediately – the President controls Cabinet composition and can comply now. Second, the Secretary to the Cabinet, an administrative officer and not a member under Article 152(1), cannot be counted as a member of the Cabinet to manufacture compliance with the 2/3 gender requirement. 

The courts declared the same violation in FIDA-K & 5 Others v Attorney-General & Another [2011] KEHC 2099 (KLR) and Kamuru & 2 Others v  Attorney-General & Another [2016] KEHC 8370 (KLR) (2016). A guarantee that must be won three times in 15 years is not being respected. Katiba Institute calls on the President to act swiftly, not to wait until the deadline or search for technical compliance at the margins. 

Where the Court Did Not Rule in Petitioners’ Favour 

The court upheld the reappointment of the dismissed Cabinet Secretaries, the affidavit-based vetting process, the appointment of opposition party leaders to Cabinet, and the Attorney-General’s appointment. Katiba Institute accepts the court’s authority and is studying the judgement carefully. We will determine whether to appeal any of these adverse holdings. Among the questions we consider unresolved: 

• whether a dismissal expressly premised on leadership and integrity failures engages Chapter Six consequences, including the Article 75(3) bar on reappointment; 
• whether Article 75(3), which prohibits the reappointment of dismissed State officers for integrity violations, requires a formal integrity finding; 
• whether Article 35(3) required the President to disclose his reasons for renominating, within eight days, the same individuals he had dismissed; and 
• whether appointing sitting opposition leaders to Cabinet, without a coalition or merger mechanism under the Political Parties Act, violates the constitutional order — the view Justice Ngaah took in dissent. 

Of particular concern is the court’s finding that the vetting process satisfied the public participation requirements of Articles 10 and 118. Under section 6(9) of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, a member of the public who wished to object to a nominee must swear a formal legal affidavit with seven days of approval hearings. That requirement excludes those who cannot read or write, those who do not know what an affidavit is or how to commission one, and those who cannot reach or afford a commissioner for oaths within a week. It also chills those with legitimate concerns who fear putting their names to a sworn statement before the very body to which they may need to remain accountable. Meaningful public participation is a foundational constitutional value, and it must be accessible to all Kenyans — not only the educated, the legally literate, or the well-resourced. A process that is formally open but practically closed to most people is not meaningful participation. 

We call on Parliament to repeal or substantially amend section 6(9) and to rethink the timelines and procedures for processes of this kind. Their decisions must be informed by the people they represent, not imposed upon them. 

What Happens Next 

The President has until 28 October 2026 to comply by appointing at least two more women (a minimum of 9 of 25 members), reducing the number of men, or both. Katiba Institute will monitor compliance and, if the President fails to act, will pursue every available avenue of enforcement. We will announce our decision on any appeal once our review of the judgement is complete. 

Download Press Statement

Also see:

• Further Amended Petition
• Judgment