Home Court Round-Up Court President’s Nominee Faces Legal Challenge Over Gender Rules

President’s Nominee Faces Legal Challenge Over Gender Rules

The nomination of Dr Duncan Oburu Ojwang as Chairperson of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) is facing a constitutional challenge at the High Court in Nairobi.

Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) filed a petition contesting the appointment, citing a violation of Kenya’s constitutional gender representation requirements.

The dispute centres on Article 250 subsection 11 of the Constitution, which mandates that the chairperson and vice-chairperson of any independent commission must not be of the same gender. The current vice-chairperson of KNCHR, Dr Raymond Nyeris, is male. Despite this, the selection panel shortlisted and recommended Dr Ojwang, who was later nominated by President William Ruto.

The petitioners argue that the nomination process unlawfully excluded qualified women, flouted constitutional safeguards on equality, and undermined principles of inclusivity and integrity in public appointments. The case raises broader questions about whether Kenya’s leadership is honouring its legal and moral obligations to uphold gender equity in national institutions.

In their filing, the petitioners rely not only on the Constitution but also on international commitments including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Maputo Protocol. They accuse the selection panel, the President, and the National Assembly of collectively failing to safeguard national values and public trust.

The legal challenge seeks the nullification of Dr Ojwang’s nomination and calls for strict adherence to the gender provisions when appointing members of independent commissions. It also asks the court to declare that any actions taken by or through Dr Ojwang under an unconstitutional appointment would be legally void.

This case marks a critical test for Kenya’s commitment to gender parity in public leadership. With increasing scrutiny over how constitutional provisions are implemented, the outcome could set a powerful precedent for future appointments across independent bodies. The matter will be heard again on 17 September 2025.

Exit mobile version