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.

The Katiba Institute has filed contempt proceedings against economist David Ndii and Harriet Chigai, two of President William Ruto’s former advisors accusing them of brazenly defying court orders that struck down their appointments.

In an urgent application filed on Monday, the civil rights organization is seeking to have the pair punished for what it describes as deliberate disobedience of Justice Bahati Mwamuye’s January 22, 2026 ruling that nullified the creation of 21 presidential advisory offices.

“That the Ndii and Chigai be cited for contempt or be found to be in contempt of court for disobeying the orders made on January 22, 2026. The two should be punished appropriately for disobeying court orders in issue,” the lobby group states in its application.

According to court filings, Chigai directly violated the court orders by attending a public function just one day after the ruling on January 23, 2026.

She subsequently posted a photograph from the event on her X account with the caption: “Through coordinated collaboration across government and key stakeholders, we are advancing responsive policies that broaden economic participation, strengthen productivity, and support shared national property.”

Ndii, meanwhile, is accused of launching a scathing social media attack against the judiciary.

In one tweet posted immediately after the judgment, he wrote: “Pyrrhic victory. We don’t need state officers to advise the president, we supported him for two years on the road to victory. We can do it as an informal kitchen cabinet over breakfast every morning.”

The application notes the court had specifically rejected the concept of a “kitchen cabinet” in its ruling as inconsistent with prudent use of public resources.

Perhaps most troubling to the petitioners is another tweet from Ndii that stated: “Reminder to the political loosers who I am told have sworn to paralyse the administration using the Courts…When law collides with politics, politics wins. Everytime.”

Katiba’s lawyer, Joshua Malidzo Nyawa, argued the two have engaged in “conduct that amounts to a direct confrontation with the Judiciary” through both disobeying court orders and issuing statements undermining judicial authority.

The application raises particular alarm over a January 24 post in which Ndii shared a newspaper cutting featuring a photograph of the Deputy Chief Justice, referencing an incident when her driver was shot following the 2017 presidential election petition judgment.

His tweet read: “A story. Following 2017 election ruling, jubilee refused to comply. Some people wanted us to go to court. @Orengo_james said absolutely not, told us we had cashed that cheque, going back would endanger the court. My NGO friends went ahead. Consequence? As you live, learn.”

The petitioner characterizes this as not only a subtle attack on the judiciary but also an indirect threat to the judge’s life.

In an affidavit supporting the application, Katiba Institute Executive Director Nora Mbagathi emphasized that the advisors had full knowledge of the court orders through their legal representation and widespread media coverage.

“The Interested Parties, therefore, had actual and constructive knowledge of the existence of the Court orders,” Mbagathi stated, adding that their conduct “constitutes a serious interference with the administration of justice and demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

 “Unless this Court intervenes immediately to send a clear and firm message, this conduct risks going unchecked; there exists a real and imminent danger that the authority of the Court and the integrity of the judicial process will be brought into disrepute in the eyes of the public,” Nyawa warned in his certificate of urgency

The case is pending hearing.