Kenya: Two conflicting rulings on Uhuru Kenyatta’s right to lead a party

This ruling comes exactly one week after an opposing decision. On September 14, Judge Lawrence Mugambi upheld Article 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act, which led Uhuru Kenyatta to announce that he would initiate the process to step down from the presidency of Jubilee. Thus, the two High Court decisions arrive at conflicting conclusions regarding the same restriction.

Bahati Mwamuye stated that a former head of state reverts to being a private citizen after their term and retains the political rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He declared Article 6 null and void in its entirety, arguing that past exercise of the presidency does not justify a lasting restriction on the right to participate in political life or hold a party position.

The High Court also annulled paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 4 of the same law. These provisions allowed Parliament, by a two-thirds majority, to reduce or withdraw certain benefits from a former president under specified circumstances. The judge noted that Article 151(3) of the Constitution protects retirement benefits and privileges from any unfavorable changes while the beneficiary is alive.

The ruling has immediately been integrated into the political tug-of-war between the government and the opposition. Kalonzo Musyoka urged William Ruto to stop portraying Uhuru Kenyatta as a “rebel leader” following the president’s criticisms of his predecessor’s political involvement. On the same day, the Azimio coalition announced its name change to Ukombozi Alliance, which Uhuru Kenyatta is set to chair.

Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei announced that he would contest Judge Bahati Mwamuye’s ruling. He pointed out the contradiction with the decision made on September 14 by Lawrence Mugambi and suggested that an appellate court would need to resolve the two interpretations of the law.