The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
Related Articles
The High Court has overturned 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 held that the appointment process did not meet the required constitutional and legal standards for public office appointments.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
The court found that the process failed to comply with Section 7 of the Kenya Roads Board Act and violated constitutional principles on transparency, accountability, and fair administrative action.
Justice Mwamuye further noted that simply publishing the appointment in the Kenya Gazette could not cure the procedural irregularities identified in the process.
He directed that any future appointment to the position must strictly follow the law, emphasizing adherence to transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and procedural fairness.
“The appointment of Hon. Aisha 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 Board Act and Articles 10, 47 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010,” the ruling stated in part.
Jumwa had been appointed to the role on January 17, 2025, by President William Ruto, with a three-year term outlined in a gazette notice issued at the time. Her appointment had followed the revocation of Ahmed Kolosh Mohamed.
In a separate but related development, the Court of Appeal recently upheld a High Court decision ordering the government to release documents linked to the multi-billion-dollar Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project.
The appellate court sitting in Mombasa dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General, affirming that the State’s refusal to disclose records on financing, procurement, construction, and management of the SGR was unconstitutional.
The court emphasized that access to information held by the State is a constitutional right, and any restrictions must be narrowly justified, with the burden of proof resting on the government.
The case was brought by petitioners Khelef Khalifa and Wanjiru Gikonyo, who sought disclosure of extensive SGR records, including contracts, feasibility studies, environmental assessments, and financing agreements linked to the project.
The government had argued that releasing the documents would compromise national security, diplomatic relations with China, and violate confidentiality agreements under the Official Secrets Act and Access to Information Act.
However, the High Court in 2022 ruled that the refusal violated constitutional provisions on access to information, leadership and integrity, and fair administrative action, ordering the State to release the documents.
The Attorney General’s appeal was later dismissed in its entirety, with the Court of Appeal upholding the High Court orders and directing each party to bear its own costs, citing the public interest nature of the case.
