The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Wanjiru Gikonyo have turned to the High Court to contest the recent appointment of Cabinet Secretaries by President William Ruto.
They are challenging the process used in the vetting process and allege procedural and integrity lapses.
The controversy centers on the appointments of 18 Cabinet Secretaries, announced by President Ruto on August 7, 2024. KHRC and Gikonyo argue that the vetting process, conducted between August 1 and August 4, was deeply flawed. According to the petitioners, the process lacked transparency and failed to involve meaningful public participation.
One of the primary concerns raised is the lack of accountability in Parliament’s handling of the vetting. The petitioners claim that the National Assembly received numerous memoranda but they were withheld from the public.
“Parliament received memoranda that were never disclosed to the public in advance,” the petition reads. “The criteria for their acceptance or rejection were determined in secrecy, without public accountability.”
The petitioners argue that the public was given only a brief window to engage with the vetting process. “The reasons regarding the memoranda were communicated to the public on August 7, 2024, with the swearing-in occurring the following day on August 8, 2024,” they state. “This timeline effectively prevented the public from thoroughly examining the Appointments Committee Report.”
Another critical issue highlighted is the integrity of some nominees. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) had raised concerns about the integrity of one nominee in a letter dated July 31, 2024.
“Given ongoing concerns about the integrity of the 20th interested person, he did not meet the standards set by Chapter 6 of the Constitution and as such, he should not have been considered for nomination,” the petition asserts.
Additionally the petition also points to a lack of proper vetting. “Vetting refers to a situation where the process of evaluating and approving candidates for public office is conducted thoroughly, transparently, in accordance with established procedures,” the petition notes. “Proper vetting is crucial to ensure that individuals appointed to significant positions meet the necessary qualifications, integrity standards, and legal requirements.”
In response to these issues, the petitioners are seeking several court declarations:
- That the National Assembly’s approach to public participation during the vetting was insufficient and unconstitutional.
- That the EACC’s integrity concerns must be considered and cannot be ignored.
- That any Cabinet Secretaries appointed despite these concerns are unfit for office, rendering the appointments unconstitutional.
- That the criteria used to assess nominees should have been disclosed to the public in advance.
- That the rejection of memoranda without informing the concerned parties or allowing them to respond was illegal.
- That the vetting process did not meet constitutional and legal requirements.
The petitioners are also asking the court to revoke the current appointments and direct President Ruto to start a new appointment process in line with constitutional standards.
