A major legal standoff is unfolding as Senior Counsel Paul Muite pushes for punitive action against President William Ruto for allegedly defying court orders concerning the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). Speaking before a three-judge bench comprising Justices Roselyne Aburili, John Chigiti, and Bahati Mwamuye on June 23, 2025, Muite urged the court to impose a fine on the President for gazetting the IEBC Chairperson and Commissioners, despite clear court orders forbidding such action.
Muite, representing petitioners Kelvin Roy Omondi and Boniface Mwangi, argued that the move to gazette the commissioners directly violated conservatory orders issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on May 29, 2025. These orders barred the swearing-in, assumption of office, or gazettement of any IEBC nominees, even after the completion of the parliamentary vetting process.
In a bold submission, Muite called on the court to issue a two-year custodial sentence against Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, Head of Public Service Felix Koskey, and the Government Printer, and to suspend a similar fine against President Ruto until his term ends due to presidential immunity under Article 143 of the Constitution.
However, Muite asserted that presidential immunity must be interpreted in light of Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Constitution, which emphasize constitutional supremacy and the obligation of every person including the President to uphold the Constitution. “The court can suspend the fine until the end of the President’s term, but the principle must be established that no one is above the law,” he emphasized.
The Senior Counsel also urged the court to nullify the gazette notice that formalized the appointments, calling it a “complete nullity” due to its violation of a standing court order. He stressed the importance of the judiciary affirming its authority, warning that failure to act decisively could embolden future violations by state actors, including sitting Presidents.
Muite maintained that the respondents were fully aware of the court orders. He pointed out that the Attorney General, representing both the Head of Public Service and the Government Printer, was present during the issuance of the conservatory orders, hence confirming effective service on all parties.
The case has sparked national interest, as it raises significant constitutional questions about the limits of presidential immunity, the authority of court orders, and the independence of the judiciary. A ruling in favor of the petitioners could set a critical precedent in upholding the rule of law and reaffirming judicial oversight over executive actions.
