In a significant legal development, a Kenyan court has ruled that Public Service Cabinet Secretary Justin Muturi’s departure from office was a voluntary resignation, not a dismissal as previously claimed by President William Ruto. This ruling contradicts earlier statements from the President, who had suggested that Muturi was removed from his position.

The court’s decision came after a group of seven petitioners challenged the manner in which Muturi was removed from office. They argued that the President’s action was unconstitutional, citing the enactment of Section 12 of the Office of the Attorney-General Act, which they believed extinguished the operation of the “pleasure doctrine” in the removal of the holder of that office. The petitioners contended that the President had no powers to dismiss the Attorney General without adhering to the statutory conditions within the principle of fair hearing as established in Article 47 and Article 236 of the Constitution.

The court certified the case as urgent and directed the petitioners to serve the Attorney General’s office and the Public Service Commission within 14 days. Justice Lawrence Mugambi, who presided over the case, directed that the matter be mentioned on September 30 for further directions.

This ruling has sparked a renewed debate over the constitutional processes governing the removal of high-ranking officials in Kenya. It also raises questions about the transparency and accountability of executive actions in the country.

As the case progresses, it is expected to have significant implications for the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to the removal of public officers and the limits of presidential authority.