Kenya's Court of Appeal has refused to suspend a High Court order requiring President William Ruto to reconstitute his Cabinet so that it complies with the Constitution's two-thirds gender rule, leaving the directive in force even though the court-set deadline expired on October 28.
Source: The Eastleigh Voice
In its ruling delivered on Thursday, October 29, the appellate court rejected the government's application to halt the orders while its appeal is heard, and directed Attorney General Dorcas Oduor to serve the court papers as the case proceeds, Kenyan media reported.
Source: Nairobi News
Seven women in a 25-member Cabinet
The dispute goes back to a June 30 judgment by a three-judge High Court bench — Justices Eric Ogola, Stephen Githinji and Jairus Ngaah — which found that the Cabinet's composition violated Article 27(8) of the Constitution. That provision requires that no more than two-thirds of the members of an appointive body be of the same gender.
Counting the President, the Deputy President, the Attorney General and the Cabinet Secretaries together, the High Court found seven women against 18 men — about 28 per cent — and calculated that at least nine members of the 25-member Cabinet must be women to meet the threshold. It gave the President 120 days to make compliant appointments.
The case arose from petitions challenging the Cabinet Ruto assembled after he dissolved his previous Cabinet in July 2024, during nationwide anti-government protests, and made fresh appointments. The government argued that implementing the judgment before the appeal is decided could disrupt government operations, according to Nairobi News.
What happens next
The appeal itself will still be heard, but with no suspension in place, the High Court order stands and the legal pressure on the presidency remains. As of the reports on Thursday, no compliant reconstitution of the Cabinet had been announced, renewing debate in Kenya over the Executive's compliance with court orders. Awaaz Punjab is reporting the ruling from Kenyan court coverage; the figures above are those recorded in the High Court judgment.
