Lawyer seeks to block four from Cabinet meetings

Monica Juma, David Ndii and Cleophas Malala have been cleared to attend Cabinet meetings. [Standard]

A Nairobi lawyer has filed a petition, seeking to reverse President William Ruto’s decision allowing non-Cabinet members to attend Cabinet meetings.

In a case of an alleged infringement of constitutional provisions, the petitioner, Charles Mugane, raises concerns about Cabinet’s approval and the participation of UDA secretary general Cleophas Malala, Chairperson of President William Ruto’s Economic Council David Ndii, Monica Juma, and Harriette Chiggai to attend Cabinet meetings.

Mugane, an advocate of the High Court, argues that their presence in Cabinet meetings is unconstitutional

“To the extent that the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents have been introduced into the Cabinet without following the process outlined in the Constitution, the said appointments are illegal, unconstitutional null and void,” reads the petition.

According to the petitioner, on June 27, 2023, the Cabinet approved a decision allowing non-Cabinet members to attend Cabinet meetings. He adds that the respondents took an oath of secrecy administered at the State House in Nairobi before attending their first meeting.

The petitioner contends that this decision contravenes Article 152 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which outlines the requirements for cabinet membership.

He says the respondents, who hold positions such as Secretary General of the UDA Party (the ruling party), the President’s Chief Economic Advisor, National Security Advisor, and Advisor on Women’s Rights, are not appointed cabinet members.

The petitioner further argues that the continued attendance of Cabinet meetings by these respondents raises significant constitutional questions that require urgent attention from the court. 

They contend that this action undermines the constitutional provisions governing the formation and functioning of the cabinet, as well as principles of good governance and the rule of law.

Similarly, the lawyer argues that Parliament was not involved in the decision to allow the said individuals to attend cabinet meetings.

The petitioner has requested an interim order to prevent the respondents from attending Cabinet meetings until the final disposal of the petition.