HIGH COURT SHAKES UP UHURU KENYATTA’S POLITICAL FUTURE AS JUDGE STRIKES DOWN LAW ON RETIRED PRESIDENTS

 CIVICLENS GAZETTE | TUESDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2026

Justice Bahati Mwamuye declares key sections of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act unconstitutional, protecting former presidents’ retirement benefits and removing the statutory restriction on holding political party office — days after another High Court judge upheld the same restriction.

The legal battle surrounding retired President Uhuru Kenyatta has taken a dramatic turn, with the High Court delivering a judgment that changes the statutory rules governing the political participation and retirement benefits of former presidents. The decision, delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye on Monday, September 21, has struck down provisions that had been at the centre of a growing dispute over Uhuru’s retirement benefits and his continued role in political party leadership. For Uhuru, the ruling arrives at a particularly significant moment: only days earlier, another High Court judge had upheld the very restriction that Justice Mwamuye has now declared unconstitutional.

The latest judgment has therefore opened a fresh chapter in a dispute that has steadily moved from political arguments into the courts. At the centre of it all is a straightforward but constitutionally important question: what political rights does a Kenyan retain after leaving the presidency, and can Parliament pass legislation that allows a former president's retirement benefits to be reduced because of political activity?

Justice Mwamuye's answer was clear on the challenged provisions.

He declared Sections 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) and Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act unconstitutional, null and void. The ruling means that the provisions can no longer be relied upon in their invalidated form to disadvantage a former president.

THE UHURU QUESTION THAT REACHED THE COURTS

The case emerged against the backdrop of a parliamentary push to review the retirement benefits of former President Uhuru Kenyatta.

On May 4, 2026, Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei moved a motion seeking the review, reduction or withdrawal of retirement benefits in circumstances connected to a former president's conduct and political involvement. The move came as Uhuru continued to occupy a prominent position within the Jubilee Party and the wider Azimio political structure.

The dispute was not merely about money.

It went directly into the difficult territory where constitutional rights, political influence and the special position of a former head of state meet.

Sheria Mtaani, through lawyer Shadrack Wambui, challenged sections of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act, arguing that they were inconsistent with constitutional protections afforded to former presidents.

The petition placed particular emphasis on Article 151(3) of the Constitution.

That provision states that the retirement benefits, facilities and privileges available to a former President and former Deputy President should not be varied to their disadvantage during the former president's lifetime.

Justice Mwamuye agreed that the constitutional protection was significant.

According to the court, Parliament could not use ordinary legislation to create a mechanism that contradicts a protection already entrenched in the Constitution.

PARLIAMENT'S POWER MEETS THE CONSTITUTION

One of the central arguments in the case concerned Parliament's authority to legislate on presidential retirement benefits.

The challenged Section 4 had provided circumstances in which retirement benefits could be withheld, reduced or otherwise affected. It contemplated parliamentary action, including a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly, in specified circumstances involving a former president.

But Justice Mwamuye rejected the idea that securing a larger parliamentary majority could make an otherwise unconstitutional action lawful.

The court's reasoning was essentially that Parliament's legislative authority remains subject to the Constitution.

A parliamentary vote, regardless of the required majority, cannot by itself cure a conflict between legislation and a constitutional provision.

The judge consequently declared Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) unconstitutional and void.

There is, however, an important detail that should not disappear in the rush to describe the judgment as a blanket cancellation of every provision in the Act.

Section 4(4) was not struck down.

The court therefore dealt specifically with the provisions challenged before it rather than wiping out the entire retirement-benefits framework.

THE POLITICAL RIGHTS BATTLE

Then came the provision with perhaps the most immediate political consequences.

Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act stated that a retired president could not hold office in a political party for more than six months after leaving the presidency.

That provision had become particularly relevant to Uhuru Kenyatta because of his continued position within Jubilee Party after leaving State House in September 2022.

Justice Mwamuye declared Section 6 unconstitutional and void in its entirety.

The judge's reasoning drew an important line between being a former president and remaining a Kenyan citizen.

Leaving State House ends presidential authority.

It does not, in itself, end a person's constitutional rights.

The court considered political participation and freedom of association among the rights that continue after retirement from the presidency. It also rejected the idea that political influence should automatically be treated as continued executive authority.

That distinction matters because Kenya's former presidents do not simply disappear from public life when they leave State House. They can remain influential political figures, party members, public commentators and participants in national debate.

The judgment therefore places the question of their political rights firmly within the broader constitutional protections enjoyed by citizens.

BUT THERE IS A TWIST: ANOTHER HIGH COURT JUDGE SAID THE OPPOSITE

And this is where the story becomes more complicated.

Justice Mwamuye's decision did not come in a legal vacuum.

Earlier this month, another High Court judge, Justice Lawrence Mugambi, reached a different conclusion concerning Section 6.

In a judgment delivered on September 3, Justice Mugambi upheld the provision restricting retired presidents from holding political party office for more than six months after leaving the presidency.

Justice Mugambi's ruling was narrower than a blanket ban on political participation.

He found that Section 6 did not prevent a retired president from being a member of a political party or from participating in political activities generally.

Instead, it restricted a retired president from continuing to hold formal political party office beyond the six-month period.

The judge reasoned that former presidents occupy a distinctive constitutional position because of the authority and influence attached to the office they previously held.

The ruling also considered the possibility of former presidents continuing to exercise political power indirectly after leaving State House.

That judgment therefore upheld the statutory restriction.

Then Justice Mwamuye delivered his ruling on September 21.

And the legal position changed again.

TWO HIGH COURT RULINGS, TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

For the public, this is perhaps the most important part of the story.

There are now two High Court judgments taking different positions on Section 6.

Justice Mugambi upheld the restriction.

Justice Mwamuye declared it unconstitutional.

The two decisions arose from separate cases and different petitions. The latest judgment should therefore not be presented as though Justice Mwamuye simply overturned Justice Mugambi on appeal.

That distinction matters.

It means the legal dispute may require further judicial clarification as the competing interpretations work their way through the judicial system.

For now, however, Justice Mwamuye's judgment has declared Section 6 unconstitutional in the case before him and prohibited its enforcement.

UHURU'S JUBILEE POSITION

The timing is particularly striking.

Following Justice Mugambi's earlier ruling, Uhuru Kenyatta had indicated his readiness to hand over the leadership of Jubilee Party.

Uhuru's communications secretary, Kanze Dena-Mararo, said the former president was prepared to hand over the party leadership following the ruling.

That development came while the law restricting retired presidents from holding party office remained in force following Justice Mugambi's judgment.

The latest ruling has now fundamentally altered the statutory position on Section 6.

It does not, however, automatically settle every internal question surrounding Jubilee Party leadership, party governance or the wider political alliances involving the former president.

Those are separate matters.

What the judgment does is remove the challenged statutory restriction that had been used as part of the legal argument against a retired president holding political party office.

WHAT ABOUT THE PARLIAMENTARY MOTION?

There is another important detail.

The court did not cancel Parliament's general constitutional power to debate legislation.

Instead, Justice Mwamuye prohibited reliance on provisions that had been declared unconstitutional.

The court also declined to quash the May 4 parliamentary motion itself because there was no completed parliamentary decision to set aside at the time of the judgment.

In simple terms, Parliament remains able to legislate within the limits of the Constitution.

What Parliament cannot do is rely on a statutory provision that the court has declared unconstitutional.

That distinction is important because it separates the court's constitutional review of legislation from Parliament's broader legislative mandate.

A RULING THAT GOES BEYOND UHURU

Although Uhuru Kenyatta is at the centre of the political context surrounding this dispute, the judgment is broader than one individual.

The court was dealing with the legal position of retired presidents generally.

The ruling therefore raises questions that could remain relevant long after the current political debate has moved on.

Can a former president retain the same political rights as other citizens?

Can legislation impose special restrictions on a former head of state?

How should Kenya balance the enormous influence that can accompany the office of former president with constitutional guarantees of political participation?

And, perhaps most importantly, can retirement benefits protected by the Constitution later be reduced through ordinary legislation?

Those questions are now part of Kenya's continuing constitutional conversation.

THE UHURU CHAPTER IS FAR FROM SIMPLE

The latest High Court judgment does not erase the political controversy surrounding Uhuru Kenyatta.

Nor does it settle every question surrounding his role in Kenyan politics.

What it does is provide a significant legal development: the provisions that sought to restrict a retired president from holding political party office and those that allowed certain adverse changes to retirement benefits have been declared unconstitutional by Justice Bahati Mwamuye.

At the same time, another High Court judgment delivered earlier this month reached a different conclusion on the political-party restriction.

That contradiction is now impossible to ignore.

For Uhuru, the ruling provides a legal reprieve from the statutory restrictions challenged in the case. For Kenya, it raises a much wider constitutional question about where presidential power ends and ordinary citizenship begins.

The former president left State House in 2022.

Four years later, the courts are still determining what exactly that departure means for his political life.

And with two High Court judgments now pointing in different directions on the same statutory restriction, the final word on the matter may not have been written yet.

CIVICLENS GAZETTE
Tuesday, 22 September 2026
News • Politics • Kenya • Accountability

Follow CivicLens Gazette on Facebook: civiclens mediake Gazette