The High Court has declared President William Ruto’s decision to establish a Presidential Taskforce on the Forensic Audit of Public Debt unconstitutional, ruling that the body unlawfully encroached on the constitutional mandate an independent Office.
In the judgment issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Thursday, the court found that the President exceeded his constitutional authority by creating a task force to undertake functions that are exclusively assigned to an independent constitutional office.
The judge held that the audit of public debt falls squarely within the mandate of the Auditor-General, whose independence is protected under the Constitution.
The ruling effectively invalidates Gazette Notice No. 9269 of July 5, 2024, through which President Ruto appointed a 22-member task force chaired by Nancy Onyango to conduct a forensic audit of Kenya’s public debt.
The court noted that while the Executive has the authority to establish advisory committees, it cannot create parallel institutions that duplicate or undermine the responsibilities of constitutionally established independent offices.
According to the judgment, allowing such a task force to proceed would erode the constitutional principle of institutional independence and weaken the country’s system of checks and balances.
The case was filed by petitioners Dr. Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Matindi, who argued that the President had unlawfully transferred the Auditor-General’s constitutional responsibilities to an executive-appointed committee. They maintained that the move violated the separation of powers and threatened the autonomy of oversight institutions.
The petitioners also questioned the legality of allocating public resources to an entity performing duties already assigned to an independent constitutional office.
President Ruto had unveiled the task force in the wake of nationwide anti-government protests in 2024, arguing that an independent forensic audit would establish the true size, legality and utilization of Kenya’s public debt.
The initiative was presented as part of broader efforts to improve transparency and restore public confidence in debt management.
However, legal experts and governance stakeholders, including the Law Society of Kenya, challenged the initiative, contending that the Executive could not constitutionally assume functions reserved for independent offices established under the Constitution.
