Above the law? How Ruto's administration has defied courts on key projects

President William Ruto and businessman Aliko Dangote during the groundbreaking of the Dangote East Africa Petroleum Refinery in Mokowe, Lamu County. [PCS]

The president-elect takes two oaths upon assumption of office. The first is the Oath of Allegiance, where he or she swears, among other things, to "obey, preserve, protect and defend this Constitution of Kenya, as by law established, and all other laws of the Republic".

The second is the Oath of Due Execution of Office, where the president swears to "do justice to all in accordance with this Constitution, as by law established, and the laws of Kenya, without fear, favour, affection or ill-will".

President William Ruto took his oath of office on September 13, 2022. The crowd that attended was overjoyed that finally a hustler was going to steer matters of the nation. In his speech a lot of emphasis was placed on the rule of law and doing things as prescribed by the law. For years later nd there is a stark difference of the Ruto then and now.

A tough-talking President last week was categorical: nothing will stand in the way of the Dangote refinery. Not even court orders. This was not the first time he was acting contrary to the law he swore to protect.

From the affordable housing project to the SHA healthcare to the Safaricom sale and now the Sh2 trillion Lamu refinery, President Ruto’s administration has repeatedly faced accusations of launching projects before complying with mandatory legal safeguards and court orders.

In 2022, Ruto promised to transform the country through an ambitious development agenda, with affordable housing, universal healthcare, roads, sports facilities, energy projects and strategic investments forming the centrepiece of his administration. All in accordance with the law.

However, several of his government's flagship programmes have been declared unconstitutional, suspended or frozen. Critics say they were rolled out first and legalised later.

Ruto has on several occasions pledged to respect the Judiciary, including in January 2026 when he presided over the swearing-in of 15 new Court of Appeal judges.

He gave an undertaking that his administration “will not disregard any court rulings. At all times and in all circumstances, we remain guided by one immutable principle: the rule of law must prevail.”

His critics say the record is different. In January 2024, after a High Court loss on the housing levy, Ruto was quoted as saying: "I will defy the court ruling and continue with what I have started."

He also accused corrupt judicial officials of blocking his development projects. About 200 lawyers marched in Nairobi in protest.

An aerial view of the proposed Dangote fuel refinery plant, near the Lamu port with three operational berths at Magongo, in Lamu West Mainland, Lamu County. [Courtesy]

Lawyer Peter Wanyama said: "You are not above the law, you must respect the law."

Even in his first month, lawyers were already uneasy. Advocate Danstan Omari said: "We were all made to believe that this administration will obey court orders."

The Chief Justice has already drawn the line. Martha Koome has said: "No one has the right to choose which court orders to obey."

Her warning goes to the heart of one of the most persistent constitutional questions facing the administration: whether the Executive can pursue its policy objectives while court proceedings or orders stand in the way.

The latest test is the Sh2.2 trillion Dangote East Africa Refinery in Lamu, where Ruto and Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote broke ground on Wednesday despite an ongoing land dispute before the Environment and Land Court.

Ruto said the project will proceed despite court orders and resistance, accusing "disgruntled opposition sponsors" of undermining the investment. "You are the sponsors of the court cases," he told critics led by Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna.

The $16 billion refinery is projected to process 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day. But 133 Lamu residents have challenged the project, citing land ownership, compensation and environmental concerns.

Malindi Environment and Land Court Judge Jane Onyango ordered parties to maintain the status quo over the disputed site pending further proceedings.

Although the order did not expressly prohibit the groundbreaking ceremony, it intensified questions about proceeding with a high-profile launch while fundamental land and environmental issues remain before the court.

The controversy has also moved to Parliament.

Sifuna has demanded disclosure of the agreement underpinning the refinery, arguing that Parliament and Kenyans should know the commitments being made on behalf of the country.

Sifuna said: “None of us has seen the agreement on that refinery. None of us knows the commitments that this country has given in order for that refinery to be built.”

He insisted that development must comply with constitutional requirements. “Nobody is against development, but again, it must be within the confines of the values of our Constitution.”

He said Dangote's conduct was reckless and that Linda Mwananchi would uphold Article 10 values.

President William Ruto and businessman Aliko Dangote during the groundbreaking of the Dangote East Africa Petroleum Refinery in Mokowe, Lamu County. [PCS]

Ruto has hit back, saying MPs have procedures for obtaining Government agreements. “I want to tell you, if you want the agreement, you know how it’s asked for at Parliament so that it’s brought,” the President said.

In June, Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale was summoned to the High Court over construction of an Ebola isolation and quarantine facility at Laikipia Airbase.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi found that construction continued despite conservatory orders issued on May 28 and confirmed on June 2, 2026.

“I find that in commissioning the ongoing construction of the facility at Laikipia, the 2nd respondent (CS Duale) is in continuing contempt of the orders of the court,” Justice Nyaundi ruled.

Duale appeared in court for mitigation and was subsequently cleared after explaining his position and apologising if his actions had been interpreted as disobedience.

The episode was a reminder that the Executive is not exempt from judicial authority once a court has issued a binding order.

It also brought into sharp focus the constitutional principle that State power is exercised within, rather than outside, the law.

The strongest judicial examination of the administration’s approach to public assets has emerged from the attempted sale of its 15 per cent stake in Safaricom.

The transaction involving Vodacom/Vodafone was challenged by businessman Tony Gachoka and others, who questioned the process, including public participation, parliamentary oversight and statutory safeguards governing public assets.

On September 15, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Francis Gikonyo, Roselyne Aburili and Tabitha Ouya declared the divestiture invalid and ordered restoration of the 15 per cent stake to the Government on behalf of Kenyans.

The judges found that the process breached constitutional and statutory requirements, including meaningful public participation.

The Social Health Insurance Fund was another flagship Ruto initiative that ran into constitutional headwinds.

Ruto's Government replaced NHIF with the Social Health Authority and introduced the Social Health Insurance Act, the Digital Health Act and the Primary Health Care Act.

In July 2024, the High Court Justice Mwamuye found aspects of the legislative process unconstitutional over inadequate public participation.

The judgment was suspended for 120 days to allow Parliament to address the defects, although the Court of Appeal later stayed the judgment.

The rollout itself was subsequently challenged, with the High Court finding fault with the October 1, 2024 launch because the necessary administrative and technological infrastructure was not fully in place.

Rather than terminate the system, the court ordered the Government to address the gaps under judicial supervision.

The court directed Parliament to undertake adequate, reasonable, sufficient and inclusive public participation.

The affordable housing programme followed a similar legal journey.

The High Court declared the housing levy unconstitutional in November 2023, with petitioners challenging the levy and the legal framework underpinning the programme.

The Government responded with new legislation. The Affordable Housing Act was assented to on March 19, 2024, providing a fresh statutory framework for the programme and levy.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the law and dismissed 42 cases challenging it.

The episode demonstrated how the administration has repeatedly returned to Parliament or the courts to address legal challenges to programmes that had already become central to its development agenda.

The same pattern has emerged in infrastructure. The proposed Adani deals provide another example.

The 30-year concession for the expansion and operation of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport triggered litigation, protests and questions over transparency, procurement and public participation.

High Court judge Mwamuye temporarily blocked the proposed airport deal following a legal challenge by the Law Society of Kenya and others.

A similar controversy surrounded a proposed Sh96 billion KETRACO transmission-line deal.

In November 2024, Ruto announced the cancellation of both arrangements after allegations surrounding the Adani Group emerged in the United States.

The episode raised questions about due diligence and the Government’s approach to major private-sector infrastructure partnerships.

The growing litigation presents a difficult constitutional question for the Ruto administration.

The Executive has the mandate to develop and implement Government policy. However, that mandate is exercised within a constitutional system that requires public participation, accountability, transparency, environmental protection, lawful procurement and respect for judicial authority.