Ndii rubbishes court ruling declaring presidential advisors illegal

National
By Mate Tongola | Jan 22, 2026
Economist David Ndii says that formal state offices were not a prerequisite for advising the President.

The Chairperson of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, David Ndii, has downplayed a High Court ruling that declared the offices of presidential advisors unconstitutional, insisting that the decision would not stop him or others from advising President William Ruto.

Through his social media, Ndii criticised the judgment delivered on Thursday, terming it a “pyrrhic victory” and arguing that advisors could continue to offer guidance informally as a “kitchen cabinet.”

The boastful economist, famous for touting his expertise in economics, maintained that formal state offices were not a prerequisite for advising the President, noting that he had been providing counsel to Ruto long before he assumed office.

“Pyrrhic victory. We don’t need state offices to advise the President. We supported him for two years on the road to victory. We can do it as an informal kitchen cabinet over breakfast every morning,” Ndii tweeted.

Earlier on Thursday, High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye ruled that President Ruto violated the Constitution by appointing 21 advisors.

The court found that the appointments were conducted in secrecy, lacked transparency and failed to comply with constitutional and legal requirements.

Justice Mwamuye held that the process did not involve the Public Service Commission (PSC) or the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), and that the positions were not filled through a competitive process.

He also faulted the government for failing to disclose how much the advisors were earning from public funds.

The ruling followed a petition filed by lawyer Lempaa Suyianka and Katiba Institute. In his judgment, Justice Mwamuye declared that the creation of the offices of advisors to the President, as constituted, was unconstitutional.

“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the creation of the various offices of Advisors to the President, as particularised in the Petition and Supporting Affidavit with respect to the 21 Interested Parties herein, by the actions, decisions and omissions of the respondents, was unconstitutional,” the judge ruled.

Share this story
.
RECOMMENDED NEWS