Ruto's advisors rush to court to stop ruling that killed their jobs
National
By
Nancy Gitonga
| Jan 29, 2026
Twenty-one presidential advisors, including economist David Ndii, have filed an urgent application seeking a temporary stay of a High Court judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional and illegal.
The advisors applied for a Certificate of Urgency, just five days after Justice Bahati Mwamuye delivered a judgment on January 22, invalidating their offices and appointments and ordering the immediate cessation of their salaries, allowances, and benefits.
Among those seeking the stay alongside Ndii are Monica Juma, Jaoko Oburu, Makau Mutua, Harriet Chigal, Ali Mahat Somane, Abdi Guliye, Dominic Menjo, Sylvia Kangara, Edward Kisiang'ani, Joseph Boinnet, Sylvester Kasuku, Nancy Laibuni, Kennedy Ogeto, Augustine Cheruiyot, Henry Kinyua, Joe Ager, Karisa Nzai, Mohammed Hassan, Steven Otieno, and Christopher Doye Nakuleu.
In the court papers, the advisors request the court to suspend the judgment's implementation for 180 days to allow them to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
“This honourable court delivered its judgment on 22nd January 2026, invalidating the offices and appointments held by the Interested Parties/Applicants and issuing coercive and structural orders with direct and far-reaching operational consequences,” the application states.
They warn that without interim protection, the appeal would be rendered ineffective.
“Absent interim protection, the intended appeal risks being rendered illusory, not by delay or inaction, but by the implementation of the orders of this honourable court,” the applicants argue.
In the supporting affidavit sworn by Joe Ager, the advisors say the judgment has immediately altered the status quo and triggered irreversible consequences.
“Once the impugned offices are abolished and consequential procedures initiated, the status quo ante cannot practically be restored, even if the intended appeal is ultimately successful, making the appeal nugatory,” they state.
The applicants further argue that the ruling prevents them from even reporting to duty for handover or transition.
“Absent a temporary stay, the 21 advisors will be rendered incapable of lawfully reporting to duty even for purposes of transition, handover, or safeguarding of official records, and without a temporary stay, they risk immediate prejudice before the Court of Appeal reviews the matter,” the application states.
They also contend that their roles are critical to government operations, stating that they perform specialised and highly sensitive advisory roles within the government, including in areas related to national security, economic policy, intergovernmental coordination, and constitutional affairs.
The advisors argue that their abrupt removal would disrupt the Executive’s functioning.
“The abrupt removal of the Interested Parties pursuant to the impugned judgment would create an immediate operational vacuum, disrupt ongoing programmes and fracture advisory processes that have been built incrementally over time,” the application reads.
Katiba Institute had successfully argued that the advisors' appointments by President William Ruto violated constitutional and statutory requirements governing public offices, leading to the court’s decision to invalidate the advisory positions.