The High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Public Service Commission (PSC) Vice Chairperson Mary Kimonye and commissioners Boya Molu, Irene Asienga, and Francis Meja.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye found that the petitioners Dr Magare Gikenyi and activist Eliud Matindi, failed to establish any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the appointments.
“This court does not sit in judgment over the wisdom of appointments, but only their legality,” ruled Justice Mwamuye, adding that there was no evidence of any constitutional or legal violations in the selection process.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
“In this case, the petitioners have not demonstrated illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, this court finds that the petition dated January 17, 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to the costs. Orders accordingly,” the judge ruled.
While throwing out the petition, ruled Justice Mwamuye emphasized the role of the Judiciary under the Constitution.
“In discharging its constitutional duty under Article 165, clause 3, paragraph D to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of public actions, this court is guided by the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of judicial restraint,” he said.
The petitioners had raised concerns, including alleged ethnic imbalance, political bias, violation of the PSC Act on staggered appointments, and exceeding the constitutional cap on PSC membership.
Dr Gikenyi argued that Kimonye’s appointment as PSC vice chairperson violated the Constitution since she shares an ethnic background with PSC Chairperson Anthony Mwaniki.
The petition also contested the eligibility of Francis Meja, claiming he is affiliated with the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) and had participated in party campaigns, which, according to the petitioners, should disqualify him.
“They are not eligible for reappointment as commissioners of the PSC, having completed their term in other commissions,” Gikenyi submitted.
Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the appointments were contrary to the PSC Act, which requires staggered terms for commissioners.
The petitioners argued that appointing all commissioners at once undermines continuity and violates the law.
Another key issue raised was the number of commissioners.
Gikenyi alleged that President William Ruto exceeded the constitutional limit by appointing eight members, including the Vice Chair, pushing the commission’s members to ten against the allowed maximum of nine.
“This brings the total membership of the commission to 10, which violates Article 233(2) of the Constitution,” the read the petition in part.
The petitioners accused the Executive and the National Assembly of disregarding constitutional safeguards and promoting “impunity and irregularities” in public service appointments.
Despite these arguments, the High Court ruled that the claims were not substantiated and upheld the appointments as lawful and constitutional.
Aggrieved by the court’s decision, Dr Magare said he will move to the Court of Appeal.
“I wish to be supplied with certified copies of the judgment and the typed proceedings to enable us to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal,” Magare said.
The judge allowed the request.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
The High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Public Service Commission (PSC) Vice Chairperson Mary Kimonye and commissioners Boya Molu, Irene Asienga, and Francis Meja.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye found that the petitioners Dr Magare Gikenyi and activist Eliud Matindi, failed to establish any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the appointments.
“This court does not sit in judgment over the wisdom of appointments, but only their legality,” ruled Justice Mwamuye, adding that there was no evidence of any constitutional or legal violations in the selection process.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
“In this case, the petitioners have not demonstrated illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, this court finds that the petition dated January 17, 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to the costs. Orders accordingly,” the judge ruled.
While throwing out the petition, ruled Justice Mwamuye emphasized the role of the Judiciary under the Constitution.
“In discharging its constitutional duty under Article 165, clause 3, paragraph D to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of public actions, this court is guided by the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of judicial restraint,” he said.
The petitioners had raised concerns, including alleged ethnic imbalance, political bias, violation of the PSC Act on staggered appointments, and exceeding the constitutional cap on PSC membership.
Dr Gikenyi argued that Kimonye’s appointment as PSC vice chairperson
violated the Constitution
since she shares an ethnic background with PSC Chairperson Anthony Mwaniki.
The petition also contested the eligibility of Francis Meja, claiming he is affiliated with the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) and had participated in party campaigns, which, according to the petitioners, should disqualify him.
“They are not eligible for reappointment as commissioners of the PSC, having completed their term in other commissions,” Gikenyi submitted.
Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the appointments were contrary to the PSC Act, which requires staggered terms for commissioners.
The petitioners argued that appointing all commissioners at once undermines continuity and violates the law.
Another key issue raised was the number of commissioners.
Gikenyi alleged that President William Ruto exceeded the constitutional limit by appointing eight members, including the Vice Chair, pushing the commission’s members to ten against the allowed maximum of nine.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
“This brings the total membership of the commission to 10, which violates Article 233(2) of the Constitution,” the read the petition in part.
The petitioners accused the Executive and the National Assembly of disregarding constitutional safeguards and promoting “impunity and irregularities” in public service appointments.
Despite these arguments, the High Court ruled that the claims were not substantiated and upheld the appointments as lawful and constitutional.
Aggrieved by the court’s decision, Dr Magare said he will move to the Court of Appeal.
“I wish to be supplied with certified copies of the judgment and the typed proceedings to enable us to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal,” Magare said.
The judge allowed the request.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Nancy Gitonga