The Attorney General has asked the High Court to dismiss a petition challenging the appointment of Presidential Advisors, insisting that the process was lawful and fully compliant with the Constitution.
In court filings, the AG listed as the first respondent argues that the petition filed by Katiba Institute is “misconceived, speculative, and legally unsustainable,” adding that it is founded on a misunderstanding of the constitutional framework governing the President’s powers.
According to the AG, Article 132(4)(a) of the Constitution expressly allows the President to establish offices within the public service on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission (PSC), without requiring parliamentary approval or public participation.
The AG also cited Regulation 27 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020, which provides the legal framework for appointing advisors to the President, Deputy President, and Cabinet Secretaries. The AG maintained that all necessary procedures were followed and that the appointments were an internal administrative matter.
“The appointment of advisors is an internal administrative process within the Executive Office of the President and does not trigger the obligation for public participation,” the AG stated.
The Attorney General further warned that granting the orders sought by Katiba Institute would amount to judicial overreach and violate the doctrine of separation of powers by interfering with executive discretion.
At the same time, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has also opposed the petition, arguing that it has no role in the appointment of presidential advisors and that no specific relief has been sought against it.
“The allegations raised in the petition do not implicate any function or power vested in the 3rd Respondent,” SRC said in its response, adding that its inclusion in the case “serves no legal purpose.”
The case, filed by Katiba Institute, seeks to have the appointments of the presidential advisors declared unconstitutional, claiming they were made in secrecy and without legal authority. The High Court will now determine whether the appointments violated the Constitution or were properly made under the President’s executive powers.
