Can Kenyans remove the President by referendum? The Ruto case explained
Kenya’s High Court has ruled that President William Ruto cannot be sued personally in a case brought by activists seeking his removal from office through a national referendum.
The decision, delivered Thursday, upheld constitutional provisions that grant the president immunity from civil proceedings while in office, but allowed the wider petition to continue.
Article 143 of Kenya’s constitution states that neither civil nor criminal proceedings can be “instituted in any court against the President or the person performing the functions of that office during their tenure of office in respect of anything done or not done in the exercise of their powers under this Constitution.”
The case was filed in 2024 by 13 activists and the Kenya Bora Tuitakayo Citizens Association, who want the electoral commission compelled to hold a referendum on whether Ruto should be removed for alleged incompetence, abuse of power and violations of the Constitution. They accuse the president of more than 30 breaches, including ethnically skewed appointments, misuse of executive authority and the controversial deployment of the Kenya Defence Forces during the June 2024 Gen-Z protests.
Ruto’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, argued that the petition was unconstitutional because a sitting president cannot be sued directly. The court agreed, striking out Ruto as a respondent and transferring his representation to the Attorney General. Ngatia also insisted that the Constitution provides only one legal route for removing a president, impeachment by Parliament and warned against what he called attempts to “bypass structured constitutional processes”.
The petitioners dispute that view, saying the Constitution also grants citizens sovereign power to seek political accountability through direct democratic means, including a referendum. Their lawyer, Kibe Mungai, said the activists were not asking the court to oust the president but to declare whether he violated the Constitution, a finding they argue could justify a public vote.
The judge declined to stop the case, leaving open the question of whether a popular referendum can supplement or override parliamentary impeachment procedures. The petitioners now plan to request a larger bench to hear the matter, citing its constitutional relevance.
This story is written and edited by the Global South World team, you can contact us here.
