A petition challenging the appointment of Raila Odinga’s key allies into President William Ruto’s Cabinet was withdrawn this week after the case became “overtaken by events.” The petitioner, Julius Ogogoh, a prominent human rights advocate and the Executive Director of the Commission for Human Rights, had initially filed the case to argue that the appointments would undermine the opposition’s constitutional role in overseeing the government. However, the appointment of John Mbadi, Hassan Joho, Opiyo Wandayi, and Wycliffe Oparanya as Cabinet Secretaries (CSs) led to the case being withdrawn.
The matter, which was brought before the High Court, was marked as withdrawn by Justice Chacha Mwita after Ogogoh’s legal representative confirmed that the appointments had already taken effect. The four political figures, known for their strong affiliations with the opposition leader Raila Odinga, had been appointed to various Cabinet positions by President Ruto earlier this year. The case, filed before their official assumption of office, was now considered irrelevant.
“My client wishes to withdraw the case as the matter has been overtaken by events following the assumption of office by the four,” said Ogogoh’s lawyer in the court statement. This acknowledgment came after the four key figures assumed office, with John Mbadi appointed as the CS for Agriculture, Hassan Joho as the CS for Transport, Opiyo Wandayi as the CS for Trade and Investments, and Wycliffe Oparanya as the CS for Devolution.
The petitioner had argued that their inclusion in the Cabinet conflicted with the opposition’s responsibility under the Constitution to provide checks and balances. Ogogoh pointed out that the opposition’s critical role in government oversight was compromised when prominent members of the opposition were brought into the executive. He contended that such appointments would diminish the ability of the opposition to effectively challenge and monitor the government’s actions.
“Their appointment conflicts with their constitutional duty bestowed upon the opposition party by Kenyans and the Constitution to oversight the government and to provide checks and balances,” Ogogoh had argued in his petition. The concern was that this shift in personnel would result in weakened scrutiny of government operations, which could potentially lead to unchecked executive actions.
In addition to the oversight concerns, Ogogoh’s petition also highlighted the political and financial implications of these appointments. The inclusion of these figures in the Cabinet was seen as politically sensitive, given that it would likely lead to by-elections in the constituencies they previously represented in Parliament. Ogogoh emphasized that such by-elections would be costly at a time when the country was facing economic challenges, with resources already stretched thin. This, according to the petitioner, would be an unnecessary financial burden on the taxpayers.
The decision to withdraw the case has effectively closed the legal avenue to challenge these appointments. The four appointed CSs will continue with their duties, and their previous roles as key opposition figures will likely be remembered as a significant moment in Kenya’s political landscape, particularly given the ongoing political dynamics between the ruling and opposition parties.
The case’s withdrawal raises important questions about the influence of political appointments on the functioning of Kenya’s political institutions. While the Constitution allows for political appointees in the Cabinet, questions remain about the balance of power between the ruling government and the opposition. Critics argue that such appointments could lead to a blurring of lines between the roles of the executive and the opposition, potentially weakening democratic checks and balances.
In conclusion, the withdrawal of the petition is a significant development in Kenya’s political landscape, reflecting the ongoing power shifts and alliances that are shaping the government under President William Ruto’s administration. As the country navigates its current political climate, the effectiveness of opposition oversight, as well as the implications of political appointments, will continue to be closely scrutinized.
