A major legal blow has hit President William Ruto’s climate agenda after the High Court has nullified his appointments to the National Climate Change Council (NCCC), citing a blatant disregard for public participation and constitutional procedures.
In a landmark judgement delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the court on Friday, May 2, 2025, declared the nominations of Emily Mwende Waita, John Kioli, Umar Omar, and Dr. George Ondera Outa “unconstitutional, unlawful, and therefore null and void.”
The judge found that the process that led to their selection fell short of the participatory thresholds set under Article 10(2) of the Constitution and specific provisions of the Climate Change Act.
He directed that the nominations be redone within 90 days, this time ensuring full compliance with both the Constitution and the law.
The case was lodged before the Milimani High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Division by the Mt Kenya Network Forum and the Indigenous People National Steering Committee on Climate Change (IPNSCCC), who argued that the public had been completely sidelined.
Through lawyer Henry Kurauka, the petitioners claimed the process was neither inclusive nor transparent and failed to consider the views of marginalized communities and other key climate stakeholders.
“The process of nomination did not comply with the principle of public participation as required under Article 10(2) of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Climate Change Act,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
“There was apparent disregard for public involvement in this matter,” he added.
“Firstly, it is not disclosed which criteria the respondents used in concluding that the civil society umbrella organization involved was the most representative, which offers room for arbitrariness.”
The judge faulted the lack of broad-based engagement with civil society and pointed out that even within the purportedly consulted organization, the nominations were limited to a select steering committee, hardly representative of Kenya’s diverse climate constituency.
Justice Mugambi was categorical that the state had not met its burden of proof on public participation.
“The minutes presented only show that the nomination process was conducted by a steering committee within one organization, without broader engagement or any call for public input,” he stated.
“Further, after the names were identified, the respondents did not invite the public or relevant stakeholders to submit memoranda and views with regard to the suitability of the persons recommended for nomination and appointment.”
The court emphasized that under Section 7 of the Climate Change Act, the NCCC must have members from civil society, youth, academia, and marginalized groups appointments that must stem from a transparent, merit-based, and inclusive public process.
The Attorney General, who led the state’s defense, had attempted to dismiss the case as premature, arguing that Parliament had yet to vet the nominees and that the judiciary was interfering in a legislative process.
But the judge rejected that reasoning.
“The submission that the petition is premature is legally unsustainable,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
“This court has jurisdiction to intervene where an alleged violation of constitutional principles or law is demonstrated. It is not the vetting and approval by Parliament that is challenged, but rather the process preceding the nomination, leading to that vetting.”
In a particularly scathing section of the judgement, Justice Mugambi faulted the government for failing to show how it identified a representative of marginalized communities a legal requirement under Section 7(h) of the Climate Change Act and Article 260 of the Constitution.
“No criteria that would guarantee fairness and merit-based identification of the representative of the marginalized communities was disclosed. The exercise was carried out without any movement of the public whatsoever,” said Justice Mugambi.
The judge reiterated the primacy of public participation in any government process, particularly one that affects the environment and vulnerable communities.
“A decision made without public participation would therefore not pass constitutional muster,” he emphasized.
“It is not just the result that matters but the process.”
He further noted that “public participation is not cosmetic” and must include deliberate efforts to involve citizens through forums, consultations, and submission of memoranda none of which were undertaken in this case.
As a result, the High Court nullified the appointments and issued a permanent injunction barring the four nominees from assuming or holding office as members of the NCCC.
Justice Mugambi also ordered that a fresh nomination process be conducted within 90 days by the relevant government agencies.
That process, he warned, must strictly adhere to the Constitution and the Climate Change Act and guarantee public participation, fairness, and competitiveness.
The four individuals had been appointed by President Ruto in 2023 as part of his administration’s efforts to combat the effects of climate change.
The NCCC, established under the Climate Change Act of 2016, is a vital organ in Kenya’s fight against climate change.
It is tasked with coordinating national climate policy, advising on legal and regulatory reforms, and guiding Kenya’s obligations under international environmental agreements.
The council is considered both a strategic and symbolic arm of the government’s climate diplomacy. President Ruto had nominated the quashed appointees in 2023 as part of a renewed national focus on green growth and environmental resilience.
