In a judgment delivered on September 21, 2026, High Court Judge Justice Bahati Mwamuye declared Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act unconstitutional and void. The provision had barred retired presidents from holding office in any political party for more than six months after leaving office. This ruling allows retired presidents to participate in Kenya's political life without restrictions.
The case was filed by Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui at the Kiambu Law Courts, challenging Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The petitioners argued that Section 4, which allowed Parliament to withhold, reduce or withdraw a retired president's benefits in specified circumstances, violated Article 151(3) of the Constitution. They also argued that Section 6 unlawfully restricted political rights guaranteed under Article 38 by linking continued enjoyment of retirement benefits or lack thereof to political conduct.
Justice Mwamuye's judgment draws a distinction between the authority of a former president and their continuing political influence as a private citizen. The judge stated that a former president does not become a constitutionally diminished citizen merely because they previously occupied the highest elective office in the Republic. This means that retired presidents can remain influential in politics without holding formal office.
The Senate, National Assembly, and Attorney General had opposed the petition, arguing that it was premature and speculative. They maintained that Parliament had constitutional authority to legislate on retirement benefits and that the provisions were subject to the Constitution. However, Justice Mwamuye rejected this argument, holding that Sections 4 and 6 were existing laws whose constitutionality could be challenged without waiting for Parliament to act under them.
On retirement benefits, Justice Mwamuye said Article 151(3) was an express and absolute protection and did not permit Parliament to create conditions through ordinary legislation that could ultimately defeat the constitutional guarantee. The judge declared Sections 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3) unconstitutional, null and void, while leaving Section 4(4) untouched because it had not been challenged.
The judgment also found that the mechanism under Section 4 was inconsistent with Articles 40 and 47, as well as the principles of natural justice, because it lacked adequate procedural safeguards for a former president facing deprivation of benefits. Justice Mwamuye consequently prohibited the respondents from enforcing Section 6 and from relying on the unconstitutional portions of Section 4 to disadvantage a former president's protected retirement benefits.
The ruling comes amid heightened political debate over alleged involvement by retired President Uhuru Kenyatta in active politics. The Kenya Kwanza administration had accused him of sponsoring opposition against President William Ruto. With this judgment, retired presidents are now free to engage in politics without fear of losing their retirement benefits. The judgment was delivered virtually on September 21, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, citing the public-interest nature of the litigation.
Key points
- The Kenyan High Court has ruled that retired presidents are free to engage in politics, declaring unconstitutional a law restricting their involvement in political parties.
- The ruling allows retired presidents to participate in Kenya's political life without restrictions.
- The judgment draws a distinction between the authority of a former president and their continuing political influence as a private citizen.
