From procedural shortcuts to executive overreach, why Ruto is facing Judiciary backlash

On Wednesday, while presiding over the swearing-in of 15 Court of Appeal judges at State House, President William Ruto publicly wondered why his plans so often end up at loggerheads with judicial decisions. The remarks appeared to reflect a leader humbled by a string of court losses against key Kenya Kwanza manifesto initiatives — setbacks that have stalled or derailed several multi-billion-shilling projects his administration has been rolling out.

Known for his confrontational politics, and alongside senior government officials who have on numerous occasions ignored court orders or openly questioned the integrity of judges, it came as a surprise when the President offered to appear before the very judicial officers he has repeatedly vilified.

Ruto announced his intention to seek a court interpretation on the legal status of political manifestos, asking judges to clarify whether manifesto-driven policies should still be subjected to public participation, as required under recent court rulings.

“I will, in a short while, be approaching the court to help me understand the place of a policy document called a manifesto. You all understand that the ultimate authority in the Republic of Kenya is the people of Kenya, and they speak to us through their decisions, including through their vote,” Ruto said.

Repeatedly, the judiciary has struck at the heart of President William Ruto’s multi-billion-shilling manifesto projects, forcing the administration back to the drawing board and, in several cases, compelling it to abandon initiatives altogether.

From university funding reforms and the rollout of the Social Health Authority (SHA), to the Sh5 trillion National Infrastructure Fund and the now-cancelled airport expansion deal involving Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, Ruto has suffered major blows from terse judicial rulings that sharply criticised the planning and implementation of these projects.

In many instances, the President has disregarded court decisions, forcing petitioners back to court to seek contempt proceedings — a pattern of defiance that critics say has now caught up with him spectacularly.

Courts have consistently cited executive overreach, procedural lapses and, most critically, failure to conduct meaningful public participation — a constitutional obligation — as among the excesses that have characterised the implementation of the President’s programmes.

Analysts have interpreted Ruto’s recent statements as a climb-down from the chest-thumping and disregard for court orders that have defined his administration. Others, however, believe the remarks — delivered in the presence of Chief Justice Martha Koome and her deputy, Philomena Mwilu — amounted to subtle intimidation.

Political analyst Duncan Munene said a party manifesto is not a constitutional document and that winning an election does not amount to a blank cheque.

“Article One does not elevate elections above the Constitution, while Article 10 explicitly lists public participation as a binding national value that applies to all state organs whenever they make or implement policy decisions. This requirement is continuous, not a one-off event held every five years,” Munene said.

He added that a manifesto is neither a law nor a legal instrument that is debated clause by clause, subjected to stakeholder scrutiny or assessed for constitutional compliance before elections.

“Courts do not block policies because they dislike them. They intervene when implementation violates the Constitution, statutory law or due process. Public participation is not a technical nuisance; it is a constitutional safeguard designed to prevent unilateral decision-making,” he said.

Lawyer Willis Otieno noted that a manifesto is essentially a campaign document.

“Only policy and legislation can be enforced. However, candidates can take an oath to implement their manifestos, and if they fail to do so, sanctions — including perjury — can follow,” Otieno said.

Legal experts argue that the President’s decision to seek judicial clarity signals recognition that electoral endorsement is not the same as constitutional licence, and that attempts to bypass constitutionally guaranteed processes can be checked by independent courts.

The Kenya Kwanza manifesto, anchored on Ruto’s ‘bottom-up economic model’, promised massive investments in affordable housing, healthcare reform, higher education financing, agriculture, infrastructure development and public-private partnerships aimed at unlocking private capital.

Since taking office in September 2022, the Ruto administration has faced multiple legal setbacks, highlighting the tension between its manifesto-driven agenda and constitutional safeguards. Many of these setbacks have arisen after the government proceeded with projects despite court orders directing it to halt implementation.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal have issued blunt rulings, tearing into the manner in which projects were rolled out — orders that the administration either ignored outright or complied with grudgingly. Several projects have ended up permanently blocked or returned to the drawing board, costing taxpayers billions of shillings in wasted planning, consultancy and preparatory expenses.

Senator Okiya Omtatah, who has been involved in several of the cases, said the President has often treated court orders as optional.

“In most rulings, Ruto has disregarded court decisions. He proceeds as if the orders do not exist, forcing me and other petitioners back to court for contempt proceedings. It is a pattern that has now caught up with him,” Omtatah said.

At the State House, Ruto said that in moving to court, he would seek to understand where a manifesto stands once the people vote for it and it is endorsed as a policy guide.

“Where does that manifesto stand when its implementation is challenged, sometimes on account of public participation, to the detriment of millions who voted for it?” the President asked.

Lawyer Peter Wanyama said that although the President is popularly elected, he remains bound by the Constitution and must subject all policy proposals to public participation, which enhances decision-making and legitimacy.

AG role

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) presidential candidate argued that instead of rushing to court for interpretation, the President and the Attorney-General should establish a clear, structured mechanism for engaging Kenyans meaningfully.

“The challenge we are witnessing is that the Attorney-General is not advising fully on the scope of public participation — that it must be meaningful and qualitative,” Wanyama said.

“You do not simply call people into a room, serve them tea and claim public participation. You must listen to their views, document them, reflect on them, and adjust your recommendations accordingly,” he added.

Beaten to submission, the President gave a rare commitment to judicial compliance, departing from the defiant posture that has repeatedly placed his manifesto programme in legal limbo.

“I want to give you my undertaking that this administration will not disregard any court rulings. At all times and in all circumstances, we remain guided by one immutable principle: the rule of law must prevail, because without it, no policy, no programme, no government and no country can endure,” Ruto said.

The remarks marked a dramatic shift for a leader who has often ignored court orders, only to see flagship projects collapse under sustained judicial scrutiny.

The controversy surrounding the Adani deals remains the clearest illustration of this trajectory. When the LSK challenged the Sh95.68 billion, 30-year power transmission agreement with Adani Energy Solutions Ltd, Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued conservatory orders blocking implementation.

Despite the ruling, government officials continued negotiations and preparatory work, treating the court order as advisory rather than binding. Clean and affordable energy had been a central promise of Ruto’s Kenya Kwanza manifesto.

Public outrage intensified — particularly among Gen Z protesters — as the LSK’s petition exposed major gaps in transparency, public participation and due diligence. Even so, the administration pressed ahead, citing strategic national interests as justification for bypassing constitutional requirements.

Similarly, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the LSK jointly challenged the proposed 30-year lease of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to Adani Airport Holdings Ltd, another project tied to Kenya Kwanza’s infrastructure agenda.

A screenshot of The Standard Newspaper with faces of Chief Justice Martha Koome and Prersident William Ruto.

Even after the High Court temporarily suspended the deal, government officials publicly defended it while privately assuring Adani representatives that the legal hurdles would be overcome.

The Katiba Institute’s challenge to the Public-Private Partnership Act of 2021 — the legal framework underpinning the Adani deals — further exposed weaknesses in oversight, particularly the absence of effective parliamentary scrutiny. The deals ultimately collapsed only after a New York court flagged Adani over corruption allegations.

In November 2024, the President announced a dramatic climb-down, cancelling both the JKIA and KETRACO Adani deals. Even then, courts demanded formal proof of cancellation after the President’s public declaration was not accompanied by legally binding documentation.

Another judicial setback came with the new university funding model, which replaced the differentiated unit cost system with a means-tested financing framework. Parents, students and civil society groups challenged the model, arguing it was introduced without adequate public participation and discriminated against students from low-income households.

Courts questioned the legality of implementing such a sweeping reform without clear legislative backing, forcing the government to defend a programme that had already been rolled out nationwide.

Efforts to overhaul healthcare financing through the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF) and the Social Health Authority (SHA) have also faced sustained judicial scrutiny. Multiple petitions challenged the legality of mandatory deductions, the regulatory framework governing the rollout, and the award of a Sh104.8 billion contract to a Safaricom-led consortium to build an integrated health information system before the enabling law was enacted.

During hearings earlier this month, Senator Omtatah revealed that the government began SHA deductions while cases were still pending in court.

“There was no regard for the judicial process. They acted as if their manifesto promise gave them authority to override the Constitution,” he told the court.

Senior Counsel Paul Muite dismissed claims that SHA was functioning effectively.

“We are told SHA is working. Yes, it is working — for the looters,” Muite said.

In December 2024, the High Court suspended the Sh5 trillion National Infrastructure Fund, which was intended to serve as the financial backbone of Ruto’s infrastructure push. Petitioners argued that its creation bypassed parliamentary oversight and constitutional safeguards.

Muite described the fund as a “looting loophole”, warning that its design allowed control and expenditure to evade parliamentary and constitutional scrutiny.

The judiciary has also intervened in housing and transport projects, halting the Southlands affordable housing project in Lang’ata, stopping the Bungoma affordable housing initiative, and entangling the Sh11.5 billion Riruta–Ngong railway project, with Omtatah seeking contempt proceedings against officials who defied court orders.

Other rulings have invalidated the creation of 21 presidential advisory offices, suspended multi-agency anti-corruption initiatives, blocked the privatisation of the Kenya Pipeline Company, and halted developments at Watamu Public Park.

Across these cases, courts have consistently found that the administration’s approach relied on constitutional shortcuts rather than lawful procedure.

Constitutional lawyer Lempaa Suyianka said: “There have been multiple instances where implementation continued despite clear court orders to stop. This creates a constitutional crisis in which the executive effectively places itself above judicial authority.”

Ruto’s remarks on seeking judicial guidance have continued to stir debate.

Political analyst Prof Gitile Naituli argued that using the swearing-in ceremony of Court of Appeal judges — attended by the Chief Justice and her deputy — to announce plans for an advisory opinion amounted to intimidation.

“It is like telling judges: ‘Look, I have done a lot for you; it is time you stopped blocking my policies.’ The President understands the role of the judiciary and also understands that manifestos cannot be challenged in court. He simply wanted his way,” Naituli said.

Lempaa reiterated that manifestos do not override the Constitution.

“If the President does not adhere to the law, the courts remain the only avenue for redress. Constitutional compliance is non-negotiable, regardless of manifesto status,” he said.