Kenya's High Court has ruled that President William Ruto did not act unlawfully when he announced restrictions on foreign nationals operating small businesses in the country. The court found that petitioner Benedict Wandeto failed to present enough evidence proving that the government enforced the proposed restrictions before Parliament passed them into law. Wandeto had challenged Ruto's September 2, 2026, remarks, arguing that the president ordered government agencies to enforce the restrictions within five days while the Local Content Bill, 2025, was still pending in Parliament.
The Local Content Bill, 2025, aims to require foreign companies operating in Kenya to prioritize local businesses, workers, suppliers, and Kenyan-made goods. However, the court noted that pending bills carry no legal force and cannot be enforced through executive or administrative actions. Justice David Mburu agreed with the petitioner on this core legal principle, stating that the Executive branch cannot act as though Parliament has already enacted a bill.
The court dismissed claims that Ruto's statement infringed upon constitutional protections covering discrimination, freedom of movement, property rights, and fair administrative action. While acknowledging that Kenya's Constitution shields foreign nationals from unlawful discrimination, Justice Mburu pointed out that Wandeto failed to show authorities took adverse administrative action against any specific individual based solely on their nationality.
The government relies on existing immigration laws to ground any enforcement actions, rather than the pending Local Content Bill. Representing the respondents, the Attorney General argued that President Ruto merely outlined the government's broader policy intentions. State lawyers maintained that officials would rely on existing immigration, licensing, and business registration laws.
Wandeto had also contended that the announcement violated Kenya's regional and international commitments under the East African Community (EAC) Treaty, the Common Market Protocol, and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. However, the court found no concrete evidence that the state enforced a blanket ban or carried out mass deportations in breach of those treaties.
President Ruto's initial remarks sparked widespread anxiety among foreign small-business owners across Kenya. Following the September 2 announcement, hundreds of Burundian nationals crowded their embassy in Nairobi seeking emergency travel documents out of fear of business closures and harassment. Reports of intimidation and attacks against foreign traders soon surfaced.
The government stepped in and clarified its stance, introducing a 90-day grace period allowing foreign nationals to regularize their immigration status, work permits, business registrations, and operating licenses. Officials also issued a stern warning to the public against harassing or intimidating foreign business owners. The court's decision brings relief to foreign business owners who were worried about the implications of Ruto's announcement.
Key points
- The Kenyan High Court ruled that President William Ruto did not act unlawfully in restricting foreign nationals operating small businesses.
- The court found that the government cannot enforce a bill before lawmakers approve it.
- The government relies on existing immigration laws to ground any enforcement actions.
