Economist David Ndii and 20 other presidential advisors have rushed to court seeking urgent orders to halt the implementation of a judgment that declared their appointments unconstitutional and illegal.
The 21 advisors filed the application under a Certificate of Urgency on January 27, five days after High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye ruled that their offices were invalid and ordered the immediate cessation of their salaries, allowances and benefits.
Joining Ndii in the application 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.
The advisors are seeking a 180-day suspension of the January 22 judgment to enable them to lodge 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.
According to the advisors, failure to grant the stay would render their planned appeal meaningless.
“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 a supporting affidavit sworn by Joe Ager, the advisors maintain that the judgment has triggered irreversible consequences that cannot be undone even if they win on appeal.
“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 21 advisors further argue that the court order has left them unable to undertake even basic handover procedures.
“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.
The applicants emphasize the sensitivity of their positions, noting that they perform specialized and highly sensitive advisory roles within the government, including in areas related to national security, economic policy, intergovernmental coordination, and constitutional affairs.
They warn that their sudden removal would cripple government operations.
“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.
The case stems from a petition by Katiba Institute, which successfully challenged the appointment of the 21 advisors by President William Ruto, arguing that the appointments violated constitutional and statutory requirements governing public offices.
The application has been filed through Issa & Company Advocates and Garane & Somane Advocates.
