High Court Upholds Legality of Presidential Taskforce on Gender-Based Violence

The High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the legality of the Presidential Taskforce on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, ruling that President William Ruto acted within his constitutional authority when he established the body.

Sitting in Nakuru, Justice Patricia Gichohi found that the President was within his powers to establish the taskforce through Executive Order and Gazette Notice No. 109 of January 9, 2025.

The taskforce was later extended through Gazette Notice No. 3862 issued on March 28, 2025.

Petitioners challenged taskforce mandate

The petition was filed by Magare-Gikenyi B and three others, who argued that the President exceeded his constitutional powers by establishing a body whose functions allegedly overlapped with those of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC).

The petitioners contended that creating the taskforce amounted to duplication of roles already assigned to existing constitutional institutions and therefore violated several provisions of the Constitution.

“The petitioners maintain that duplicating roles is a waste of scarce public resources since the task force will essentially be performing roles of existing public offices, contrary to Article 201(d) of the Constitution,” they argued.

They also raised questions about the integrity of the taskforce’s chairperson, Nancy Baraza, referring to her previous tenure as Deputy Chief Justice and arguing that she had been removed from public office over misconduct.

“It is further the petitioners’ case that the chairperson of the task force, the 14th respondent [Nancy Baraza] raises a question of integrity and maintains she was removed from public office as the Deputy Chief Justice due to misconduct.”

The petitioners sought declarations that the taskforce was unconstitutional, null and void.

They also wanted the court to quash the gazette notices establishing the body, prohibit implementation of its report and compel compliance with the Constitution.

In addition, they sought an order holding the President personally liable for funds spent on the taskforce.

Respondents defend President’s powers

The respondents, including the taskforce, the Attorney General, NGEC and the Principal Secretary for Gender, opposed the petition.

They argued that the President, as head of state and government, has the authority to establish taskforces where circumstances require their creation.

The respondents maintained that the taskforce did not usurp NGEC’s constitutional mandate because its role was primarily investigative and advisory.

“The respondents further argue the mandate of the task force does not in any way usurp the mandate of the third respondent [NGEC] as the task force was mandated to identify trends, hotspots and causes contributing to gender-based violence and femicide, which is becoming rampant and a great concern,” the court heard.

They argued that the President had acted under Article 129 of the Constitution, which vests executive authority in the President, as well as Article 21(3), which requires the State to address the needs of vulnerable groups.

The respondents also maintained that Baraza’s previous departure from the Deputy Chief Justice position did not automatically disqualify her from serving in public office.

Judge upholds taskforce’s establishment

Justice Gichohi agreed with the respondents, finding that the Constitution gives the President discretion to undertake executive functions necessary to implement existing laws.

The judge said this authority includes the establishment of ad hoc taskforces where necessary.

Justice Gichohi found that the taskforce’s terms of reference did not violate the Constitution and that its role was advisory rather than decision-making.

She ruled that the taskforce was constituted “to advise the President as per the Terms of Reference (TOR) but with no powers in regard to decision-making.”

The court therefore rejected the argument that the taskforce had taken over the functions of existing constitutional institutions.

Court addresses Nancy Baraza’s integrity

The judge also considered the petitioners’ challenge to the eligibility of Nancy Baraza to chair the taskforce.

The court noted that Baraza had voluntarily resigned from the position of Deputy Chief Justice before a tribunal recommendation could be acted upon.

As a result, Justice Gichohi found that she had not been dismissed or removed from office following the tribunal proceedings.

The court therefore rejected the argument that her previous circumstances disqualified her from subsequent public service.

President not personally liable for taskforce spending

Justice Gichohi also dismissed the petitioners’ attempt to hold the President personally responsible for expenditure incurred by the taskforce.

The judge noted that the President is not an accounting officer and is protected from personal liability in such circumstances by Article 143(2) of the Constitution.

The court consequently declined to impose personal financial liability on the President for funds spent by the taskforce.

Petition dismissed

Justice Gichohi dismissed the constitutional petition in its entirety.

Given the public interest nature of the case, however, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.