The High Court has quashed the appointment of former Gender Cabinet Secretary Aisha Jumwa as Chairperson of the Kenya Roads Board.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, May 20, Justice Bahati Mwamuye found that the appointment process failed to meet the legal and constitutional standards required for public appointments.
The judge ruled that there was no clear compliance with Section 7 of the Kenya Roads Board Act and further found that the process breached constitutional provisions relating to transparency, accountability and fair administrative action.
According to the court, the process through which Jumwa was appointed was procedurally flawed and could not be validated merely through publication in the Kenya Gazette.
The court directed that any future appointment to the position must strictly adhere to the law and constitutional principles, including transparency, inclusivity, accountability and procedural fairness.
Read More
"The appointment of Hon. Aishwa Jumwa as a member of the Kenya Roads Board is unconstitutional and unlawful ab initio as it did not comply with Section 7 of the Kenya Roads Boards Act and articles 10,47 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010," the ruling read in part.
Jumwa was appointed to the role on January 17, 2025 by President William Ruto.
In a gazette notice, President William Ruto said her tenure would run for a period of three years, effective immediately, according to the notice.
The appointment followed the revocation of Ahmed Kolosh Mohamed from the position.
This comes days after the Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court ruling compelling the government to release documents relating to the multi-billion-dollar Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project.
In a judgment delivered on Friday, May 15, the appellate court sitting in Mombasa dismissed an appeal filed by the Attorney General, affirming that the State's refusal to disclose documents related to the financing, procurement, construction, and management of the SGR project was unconstitutional.
"The court held that access to State-held information is a constitutional and democratic entitlement, subject only to narrowly construed and constitutionally justifiable limitations, and that the burden of proving any exemption rests squarely upon the State or public authority withholding the information," the Office of the Ombudsman said in a statement.
According to the Ombudsman, the case was filed by Khelef Khalifa and Wanjiru Gikonyo, who sought the release of extensive records linked to the SGR project, including financing agreements, procurement contracts, feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, operational agreements, and bilateral arrangements between Kenya and China.
The petitioners argued that despite the SGR project costing more than USD 4.5 billion in public funds and loans backed by Kenyan taxpayers, critical documents had remained inaccessible to the public.
The government, through the Attorney General and Kenya Railways Corporation, had declined to release the information, citing confidentiality clauses, national security concerns, foreign relations considerations, and exemptions under the Official Secrets Act and the Access to Information Act.
The matter was later escalated to the Commission on Administrative Justice, commonly known as the Office of the Ombudsman, before proceeding to the High Court.
In May 2022, Justice Anthony Mativo ruled that the refusal to disclose the documents violated Articles 10, 35, and 47 of the Constitution and ordered the State to release the information.
However, the Attorney General challenged that decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that disclosure would undermine Kenya’s national security, damage diplomatic relations with China, and expose the government to legal and financial consequences arising from breach of confidentiality obligations.
The court has since dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal in its entirety, upheld the High Court orders compelling disclosure of the SGR documents, and directed that each party bear its own legal costs due to the public interest nature of the case.
