Back like he never left: Court ruling thrusts Uhuru back into politics

Former President Uhuru Kenyatta attend the burial ceremony of Christine Waruguru Kariuki in Gikuu village, Kiharu Constituency, Murang'a County on Friday, September 18, 2026. [OFPP, Standard]

President William Ruto’s increasingly bitter political exchanges with his predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, have acquired a new legal dimension after the High Court declared unconstitutional the law restricting retired presidents from holding political-party office and allowing Parliament to interfere with their retirement benefits.

The judgment by Justice Bahati Mwamuye comes barely a week after another High Court judge, Justice Lawrence Mugambi, upheld the same restriction, setting up a rare conflict of judicial interpretation over the political rights of former presidents.

Ruto has in recent weeks repeatedly attacked Uhuru, accusing him of sponsoring Opposition politicians and groups opposed to his administration and describing the retired president as a “rebel leader” rather than a statesman.

“Mimi nashangaa, mtu ambaye amekuwa Rais wa Kenya, unaacha kiti ya Rais, badala ya kwenda kuwa statesman, unaenda kuwa rebel leader, kiongozi wa upinzani,” Ruto said in Siaya last week.

He also questioned whether Uhuru could influence the 2027 presidential contest after failing to stop his victory in 2022.

“So Uhuru Kenyatta did not defeat me when he was President, and now I am the President, and he is retired, is he going to defeat me?” Ruto asked.

Uhuru has rejected the allegations that he is sponsoring the Opposition and has repeatedly said he is not seeking political office.

Speaking at a memorial service in Kitale last month, the former President said Kenyans had the constitutional right to choose their leaders and warned against attempts to restrict political freedoms.

“I don’t want to be called a sponsor; I have just said the power belongs to the people,” Uhuru said.

He maintained that he was not interested in seeking another political seat, even as he defended the right of politicians and citizens to participate in political activity.

In the case filed by Sheria Mtaani and lawyer Shadrack Wambui, Justice Mwamuye declared Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3), as well as the entirety of Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act, unconstitutional, null and void.

Section 4 had allowed Parliament, under specified circumstances, to deny, reduce or withhold the retirement benefits of a former president, including where the retired president engaged in political-party activities or held an elective or appointed public position.

Justice Mwamuye held that the provisions impermissibly interfered with the constitutional rights of retired presidents.

He also struck down Section 6, which had restricted former presidents from holding political-party office beyond six months.

“Section 6 is unconstitutional because the restriction which it imposes upon the political participation of a retired President is inconsistent with the constitutional protection of political rights, and its operation cannot be sustained within the constitutional framework governing those rights. These findings must inform the relief to be granted,” ruled Justice Mwamuye.

The judge's central argument was that leaving State House fundamentally changes a president's legal status. A retired president, he held, ceases to exercise the coercive and executive authority of the State and becomes a private citizen.

“Retirement from office ends the office; it does not end the person,” Mwamuye said.

The judge rejected the argument that a former president's continuing popularity or political influence could, by itself, justify restricting his constitutional rights.

“Influence is not a constitutional disability,” he said, adding that the fact that citizens might listen to, respect or seek the counsel of a former president could not, without more, justify depriving that person of the political rights enjoyed by other citizens.

Mwamuye also questioned the logic of allowing a retired president to serve as an adviser to the Government while simultaneously restricting his political participation.

His conclusion was that the State could not create what amounted to a class of “weaker citizen” based on the office a person previously held.

The development could also throw renewed battles for the control of Jubilee Party after recently losing the part secretary general in a separate decision by the registrar of political parties.

Uhuru had remained party chairman after leaving State House in 2022 and had survived attempts by rival factions associated with Sabina Chege and Kanini Kega to alter the party's leadership before regaining control through the courts.

The September 14 judgment appeared to force the issue, with Uhuru accepting that he would relinquish the position.

The latest ruling follows a decision delivered by Justice Mugambi on September 14 in a separate constitutional petition challenging Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.

Section 6 provides that a retired president cannot hold office in a political party for more than six months after leaving State House.

Justice Mugambi upheld the provision, finding that it was a reasonable limitation on the political rights of retired presidents.

His ruling was anchored on what he considered the unique position and continuing influence of a former head of State.

The judge noted that the restriction was not an absolute ban on political participation because a retired president remained free to belong to a political party and engage in political discourse. What the law prohibited was continuing to hold formal party office beyond six months.

Justice Mugambi went further, warning about the danger of a former president retaining political power after leaving State House.

“History has a tendency of repeating itself,” he said, arguing that the provision was not an idle one but had emerged from previous experience in which a former president sought to maintain an indirect hold on power after leaving office.

According to Mugambi, the provision was intended to safeguard democracy by preventing “state capture by an influential former head of state exerting his political power beyond his constitutional term”.

He concluded that the restriction met the proportionality threshold under Article 24 of the Constitution.

The ruling appeared to settle the immediate question surrounding Uhuru’s position as Jubilee Party chairman.

Uhuru accepted the decision and indicated that he would relinquish the party leadership, with his office saying the handover would be conducted openly, lawfully and in accordance with the party constitution.

However, Mwamuye’s decision has now removed the statutory provision that formed the basis of that restriction. It remains to be seen whether the retired president will recliam the Jubilee Party Leader position which he relinquished last week.

In a press briefing yesterday, Wiper Patriotic Front leader Kalonzo Musyoka said Uhuru will be maintained as the chairman of the re-branded Ukombozi Alliance.

“The coalition chair is the 4th president, Uhuru Kenyatta, and tomorrow he is convening the Jubilee Party meeting to make necessary and important decisions and communicate to the Ukombozi alliance so that we move together and in union,” Kalonzo said.

The Opposition leaders also welcomed Mwamuye's judgment as affirming Uhuru's right to participate in politics. Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka also rejected Ruto's description of Uhuru as a “rebel leader”, arguing that the former president remained entitled to participate in political life.

Uhuru has so far declined to engage Ruto directly in the escalating war of words and stuck to a prepared speech and joked that he had become more cautious about speaking off the cuff because his words could be misinterpreted when he appeared at a funeral in Murang'a on Friday.

“That is all from ‘sponyo’ na tutaonana na kuendelea kuwa pamoja,” he said, playing on Ruto's repeated use of the word “sponsor” in accusing him of financing Opposition forces.

Ruto has repeatedly placed Uhuru at the centre of his narrative about the emerging Opposition, portraying him as the force behind politicians and movements challenging his administration.