The High Court is today expected to issue directions in a constitutional petition filed by Katiba Institute challenging the transfer of Kenya’s public seal from the Attorney General to the Head of Public Service.
This comes weeks after the court issued a conservatory order stopping the transfer.
Justice Chacha Mwita ruled that the contested transfer, effected through Executive Order No. 2 of 2023, raises significant constitutional and legal questions of public interest that must undergo judicial review before any further steps are taken.
In the petition, Katiba Institute argues that the decision to relocate the public seal—which authenticates key state instruments including presidential appointments and other official state documents—violates both the Constitution and long-standing legal norms.
The public interest litigation group maintains that under Article 156 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the government and, by long-established tradition and legal precedent, is the rightful custodian of the seal.
The Institute contends that such a directive undermines the legal independence of the Attorney General’s office and risks politicising a symbol of state authority.
Justice Mwita, on June 12, directed all parties to fast-track the exchange of legal documents in the case.
The respondents were granted seven days to file their responses to the petition, after which the petitioner was given a further seven days to submit any supplementary affidavit and written submissions.
In another case, the Nairobi High Court will give the way forward in a petition filed by the Kenya Union of Journalists and the Media Lawyers Association of Kenya, challenging the Communications Authority’s decision to suspend live coverage of Gen-Z protests on June 25, 2025.
The petitioners argue the directive was unconstitutional, citing violations of press freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to access information as protected by the Constitution.
Although the affected media houses have since resumed broadcasting following interim court orders, the petitioners maintain that the attempted blackout set a dangerous precedent that warrants judicial scrutiny.
The court is now expected to outline the way forward in
hearing the petition, including timelines for responses and submissions.
