4 activists challenge President Ruto’s victim’s compensation panel in High Court
By Zipporah Ngwatu, August 28, 2025Four activists led by Nakuru County-based Consultant Trauma and General Surgeon Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Matindi have moved to the High Court challenging President William Ruto’s legality to appoint a panel of experts to oversee compensation of victims of protests.
President Ruto, on August 25, 2025, through a gazette notice, appointed a Presidential Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Demonstration and Public Protests. Through a presidential proclamation dated August 6, 2025.
According to the petitioners, President Ruto does not have legal powers as per the Constitution to form a panel or any other document of any other date to look into compensation and reparation issues in the manner, composition, and terms as set out in the executive proclamation order gazette notice.
Application
“That a declaration be issued that the President of the Republic of Kenya could not legally and constitutionally establish a presidential panel of experts on compensation of victims of demonstrations and public protests through presidential proclamation dated August 6, 2025, and gazette notice No. 12002 VOL. CXXVII-179 dated August 25, 2025, or any other document of any other date to look into compensation,” part of the application read.
Further, the petitioners, through a certificate of urgency filed at the Milimani Constitutional and Human Rights Division on Wednesday, August 27, 2025, seek a court order pronouncing the panel as null and void.
They are also seeking a judicial review order of certiorari to be issued quashing the executive proclamation gazette notice or any other document dated any other date purporting to establish a presidential panel of experts on compensation of victims of public protests.
Notably, they want the court to declare any report or recommendations or any activities borne out of President Ruto’s executive proclamation order to be pronounced as unconstitutional, null, and void.
The activist argues that the appointment of the panel was not competitive and that only the president knows how the actual members were selected, which is contrary to, inter alia, articles 1, 10, 73, 75 and 232 of the constitution.
They also state that picking some public servants to be on the panel and leaving others arbitrarily is contrary to Article 236 of the Constitution.
They also state that, other than the president, nobody else knows the allowances and remuneration of the team members, contrary to the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance, and articles 10, 1, and 2 2(1)(e) of the constitution.