High Court Upholds IEBC Appointments But Quashes Presidential Gazette Notice
President William Ruto. [Photo/PCS]
The High Court has issued a landmark judgment in a petition challenging the recent appointment of the Chairperson and Commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), delivering a nuanced verdict that both upholds the substantive appointments and invalidates the process used to formalise them.
In its ruling, the Court dismissed the petitioners’ request to nullify the appointments themselves, affirming that the selection of the IEBC officials was procedurally and legally sound. However, the Court found fault in the manner the appointments were formalised. Specifically, it held that the Gazette Notice published by President William Ruto to confirm the appointments was unlawful, having been issued in defiance of an existing conservatory order from the Court.
As a result, the Gazette Notice has been quashed, effectively halting the swearing-in of the new commissioners until the President issues a fresh notice that complies with the Court’s directives.
Legal Implications
This judgment introduces a temporary legal vacuum at the IEBC, which has been under pressure to reconstitute fully ahead of several upcoming by-elections and the anticipated 2027 General Election cycle. While the individuals appointed to the Commission remain legally valid, their assumption of office is on hold until the proper procedural steps are taken.
“The appointments are substantively valid, but incomplete,” the Court stated in part of its decision, underscoring that constitutional processes must be observed regardless of the urgency or significance of the appointments.
The President is now required to issue a new Gazette Notice that aligns with the Court’s findings. Once done, the Chairperson and Commissioners will be eligible to take their oath of office before Chief Justice Martha Koome and begin their work at the helm of Kenya’s electoral management body.
Background
The IEBC has operated in a transitional and partly vacant state since the resignation and retirement of several commissioners following the contested 2022 General Election. The protracted process to fill these vacancies has been mired in political and legal contention, reflecting broader concerns about the credibility and independence of electoral institutions in Kenya.
The current appointments had drawn legal scrutiny from civil society actors and sections of the opposition, who raised issues around transparency, public participation, and alleged procedural irregularities. This case is one of several that have tested the constitutional limits of executive power and the judiciary’s role in electoral governance.
Next Steps
The ruling now places the ball squarely in the President’s court, as the country watches closely to see how swiftly the formalisation process will be redone. Political observers note that any delays in regularising the appointments could affect IEBC’s operational timelines, particularly with ongoing voter registration drives and the potential delimitation of boundaries expected before 2027.
Despite the legal snag, the High Court’s decision is seen by many as a reinforcement of the principle of judicial oversight and procedural accountability in state appointments.
