Ruto advisors move to court to stop ruling on their work 

A group of 21 advisors to the President urgently moved to court seeking to suspend a judgment that invalidated their offices and appointments.

The application for stay, filed on January 27, 2026 came days after High Court Judge Justice Bahati Mwamuye delivered a judgement on January 22, which found the creation of the “Advisors to the President” offices unconstitutional.

The advisors, listed as Interested Parties in the petition filed by the Katiba Institute, argued that without an immediate suspension of the judgment’s effects, their intended appeal to the Court of Appeal will be rendered meaningless.

In a Certificate of Urgency and a supporting affidavit sworn by advisor Joe Ager, the applicants stated that the judgment’s enforcement would lead to “irreversible legal and institutional consequences.”

They argued that abolishing the offices immediately would create an “operational vacuum” in key government functions, including national security, economic policy, and constitutional affairs.

“The abrupt removal of the Interested Parties… would disrupt ongoing programmes and fracture advisory processes that have been built incrementally over time,” Ager stated in his affidavit.

He added that such a gap “cannot be filled easily, quickly or cost-effectively.”

The group asked the court to grant a stay of execution for 180 days.

This period, they said, would allow them to file a formal appeal and request an expedited hearing at the Court of Appeal without the subject matter of the dispute being extinguished.

The original petition, was filed by the Katiba Institute against the Attorney General, the Public Service Commission, and the Salaries and Remuneration Commission.

The civil society organization challenged the legality of the presidential advisors’ offices, arguing they were created in violation of constitutional principles and the mandate of independent commissions.

The advisors contend that they were properly appointed with the approval of the Public Service Commission and perform critical, specialized roles in supporting the President’s mandate.

“Decisions as to whether to retain, replace, restructure or dispense with advisory support within the Executive are inherently matters of executive judgment, best assessed by the President, who is constitutionally vested with responsibility for the daily management of government and the delivery of the electoral mandate,” read the court documents.