By Andrew Kariuki
Twenty-one presidential advisors have moved to court seeking an urgent temporary stay of a judgment delivered on January 22, 2026, which declared their appointments unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
In court filings, the advisors ask that their application be certified as urgent and heard ex parte, allowing the court to consider the request before the judgment is implemented.
Through their lawyers, Mansur Issa and Mohat Somane, the advisors are seeking a suspension of the ruling for up to 180 days, or for such period as the court may determine, to allow them time to file and pursue an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
They argue that without a stay, the judgment would immediately bar them from reporting to their offices, even for purposes such as handover, transition, or securing official records.
According to the application, this would cause immediate prejudice and disrupt ongoing government operations.
The advisors state that court decisions declaring appointments unconstitutional have consequences that extend beyond the affected individuals, with broader implications for public administration and governance.
They argue that a time-bound stay would prevent disruption while the appellate process is underway.
They further contend that the ruling significantly alters the status quo in a manner that cannot be reversed even if an appeal were to succeed.
In their application, the advisors note that they serve in specialised roles, including national security, economic policy, intergovernmental coordination and constitutional affairs.
They argue that an abrupt cessation of their duties would interfere with ongoing programmes, create gaps in operations and affect institutional continuity.
The application also raises the issue of executive discretion, stating that decisions relating to the structure and retention of advisory roles within the Executive fall within the President’s mandate and should be handled in a manner that allows for orderly governance as the legal process continues.
