Editor's note: Read the case here.
KHRC and Wanjiru Gikonyo contested the appointment of 19 cabinet secretaries, citing that MPs did not adequately consider public input.
They also filed the lawsuit because one nominee, Wycliffe Oparanya, had been implicated by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) in graft scandals.
KHRC and Gikonyo are seeking to nullify the appointments of the 19 CSs.
On July 12, President William Ruto dissolved his first cabinet amid growing pressure from young Kenyans, who had been protesting his administration's corruption, nepotism, and abuse of power.
Ruto subsequently nominated 20 individuals, including 10 from his initial cabinet, which further fueled public rage.
When the vetting began on August 1, the Parliamentary Committee on Appointments failed to transparently disclose the criteria for candidate selection.
Concerns were raised about the integrity of several nominees, and the approval of the 21 CSs was conducted in secrecy.
MPs did not thoroughly examine all relevant aspects of the nominees' backgrounds, qualifications, and suitability for their roles.
This resulted in appointing individuals not subjected to comprehensive financial scrutiny and whose ethical conduct and integrity were not adequately evaluated.
A report on the nominees' vetting revealed that Kenyans submitted 813 memoranda questioning the nominees' suitability.
However, MPs dismissed 656 of these petitions, citing that they were not submitted under oath.
Media reports indicate that the National Assembly received slightly more than 1,300 affidavits, of which only 187 supported Ruto's new cabinet nominees.
This suggests that MPs prioritized procedural technicalities over substantive concerns.
Still, the executive did not give the public sufficient time to review the vetting report, as the CSs were sworn in less than 24 hours after being approved by MPs.
The petition argues that the nomination, vetting, and appointment processes failed to meet the required legal and constitutional standards.
Since these processes lack transparency, fail to ensure adequate public participation, or disregard essential legal and ethical requirements, they fall short of the law and the Constitution.