Judiciary deny presiding over swearing in of 50 appointed CASs

The Judiciary has distanced itself from claims that it presided over the swearing in of the 50 newly appointed Chief Administrative Secretaries (CASs) while the matter is still pending in court.

Through a statement, the Judiciary stated that the claim which was made by the national coordinator of the Institute for Social Accountability Diana Gichengo was grossly misleading.

It also stated that it did not send any official to State House to conduct the ceremony, adding that it has no role whatsoever in the process as the Judiciary has no role in presiding over the swearing in of CASs, Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries.

“The Judiciary’s attention has been drawn to a statement issued by the National Coordinator of the Institute for Social Accountability Diana Gichengo, claiming that the Judiciary presided over the swearing-in of Chief Administrative Secretaries while the matter was pending in court,” read the statement.

“The statement is grossly misleading and deliberately meant to discredit the Judiciary. The Judiciary has no role in the swearing-in of Chief Administrative Secretaries. Similarly, the Judiciary does not play any role in the swearing-in of Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries.”

The 50 CASs were controversially sworn in on Friday by President William Ruto even after the National Assembly failed to vet them citing lack of constitutional authority to carry out the exercise.

“The obligation to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution enjoins the House to refrain from assuming and discharging a role that it has not been expressly assigned by the Constitution or written law. In that regard, the National Assembly is unable to vet the nominees in the absence of an express constitutional or statutory requirement to do so.” National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula said.

The High Court later barred them from assuming office or paid using taxpayer’s money pending the determination of a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Katiba institute.

In their petition, the LSK and Katiba institute through lawyers Dan Oino and Eric Theuri argued that the appointment of the 50 CASs was unconstitutional.

According to the petitioners, although the Public Service Commission (PSC) gave a nod for the appointment of 23 CASs, the President went ahead and appointed 50 which is unlawful.

In the lawsuit, the President and the Public Service Commission have been mentioned as respondents while the 50 CASs as interested parties.