Former Chief Justice David Maraga has called on President William Ruto to immediately reconstitute his Cabinet to comply with the two-thirds gender rule, warning of possible legal consequences following the expiry of a court-imposed deadline.
In a statement issued on Friday, October 30, 2026, Maraga said the President had failed to comply with a High Court judgment declaring his 25-member Cabinet unconstitutional for failing to meet the constitutional gender threshold.
The judgment in the case of Katiba Institute & Others v. President William Ruto & Another gave the Head of State 120 days to reorganise his Cabinet to include at least nine women.
According to Maraga, the deadline expired on October 28, 2026, without the President making the required changes.
“As an advocate for Constitutionalism and a defender of the rule of law in our republic, I am deeply troubled by President Ruto’s blatant refusal to honor the Constitution of Kenya, that he took the oath of office to obey, protect and defend!” Maraga stated.
He further criticised the government’s attempt to obtain a stay of execution through the Attorney General, arguing that filing an application did not suspend the existing court orders.
The former Chief Justice noted that the Court of Appeal had declined to certify Attorney General Dorcas Oduor’s application as urgent and instead directed parties to serve and exchange submissions within 30 days.
He questioned the timing of the application, saying it was dated October 6, 2026, but Katiba Institute only received communication from the court on October 29, the day before the statement was issued.
“The filing of a stay application by Attorney General Dorcas Oduor does not grant the President a single second of legal justification to delay compliance. A court order remains fully active, alive, and binding unless and until a higher court explicitly stays it,” he said.
Maraga also accused the President and the Attorney General of failing to act within the 120-day period despite having sufficient time to comply with the judgment.
He warned that continued non-compliance could trigger legal action, including contempt proceedings against the Attorney General, whom he described as the government’s principal legal adviser.
However, he acknowledged that Article 143 of the Constitution provides a sitting President with immunity from civil and criminal proceedings during their term, arguing that petitioners and the Law Society of Kenya could pursue contempt proceedings against the Attorney General.
The former Chief Justice also raised concerns about the implications of the gender rule dispute for public administration, arguing that decisions made by the Cabinet after the deadline could face legal challenges.
He claimed that failure to comply with the Constitution could render executive actions taken by the Cabinet a legal nullity and questioned the legality of public expenditure authorised by the Cabinet.
Maraga further recalled the 2012 debate surrounding Parliament’s failure to implement the two-thirds gender principle, saying that during his tenure as Chief Justice, he advised former President Uhuru Kenyatta to dissolve Parliament over its failure to comply with constitutional requirements.
Turning his criticism to Ruto’s administration, Maraga questioned why the President was appealing a judgment requiring the inclusion of more women in his Cabinet.
“Why is President Ruto even appealing a judgement that simply asks him to include Kenyan women in governance? Is he implying that the women of Kenya are undeserving of seats in his Cabinet?” he posed.
He also questioned whether the President could identify two additional qualified women to serve in the Cabinet, given that he had been granted four months to comply.
Maraga’s statement further touched on other recent court decisions involving the President’s public announcements. He cited a judgment delivered on October 29, 2026, by Lady Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande, which declared Ruto’s roadside announcements on affordable housing allocations unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
The case concerned the President’s proposal to reserve 40 per cent of affordable housing units for teachers and police officers.
Maraga said the court had reaffirmed that presidential declarations could not introduce or alter criteria established by Parliament under the Affordable Housing Act.
“Justice Nyaundi rightly held that executive authority must be exercised strictly within the law, ruling that presidential declarations cannot alter or introduce new criteria established by Parliament under the Affordable Housing Act,” he stated.
He also criticised the planned opening of the Raila Odinga International Stadium, questioning the reported expenditure of more than KSh1 billion on the event and the proposed football match featuring German giants Bayern Munich and Dutch side Ajax.
He accused the government of prioritising the event while national teams, including Harambee Stars, continued to face funding challenges.
In his closing remarks, Maraga urged Ruto to immediately reconstitute his Cabinet and comply with the court judgment, warning that continued defiance of court orders threatened constitutional governance.
“I call upon the President to immediately cease these wasteful, toxic appeals and reconstitute the Cabinet today. Defying the courts is an explicit invitation to anarchy,” he stated.
He added that if the President was unwilling to comply with the Constitution, he should resign and allow other Kenyans to lead the country.
