A fresh legal battle has erupted over President William Ruto’s decision to create a new multi-agency team to fight corruption. Less than 24 hours after the President unveiled the unit, four petitioners have moved to court to block its implementation.
The case, filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court in Nairobi, argues that the Head of State acted outside his constitutional powers. The petitioners include Nakuru-based surgeon Dr. Magare Gikenyi, Eliud Karanja Matindi, Philemon Abuga Nyakundi, and Dishon Keroti Mogire.
They want the court to declare the Presidential Multi-Agency Team on the War Against Corruption (MAT-WAC), formed on August 18, 2025, unconstitutional and illegal.
According to the petitioners, the Constitution does not grant the President authority to establish an anti-corruption agency, noting that such a mandate lies with independent institutions. They argue that Article 132(4) only empowers the President to perform duties provided for in law, and to establish offices in the public service with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.
“The so-called powers are just imaginary hot-air mirage powers which do not exist in our progressive Constitution,” the petition reads in part. The four claim that by creating MAT-WAC, the President is attempting to usurp the mandate of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), which is anchored in Article 79 of the Constitution and the EACC Act of 2011.
President Ruto, while announcing the team, said it would enhance inter-agency cooperation in tackling corruption, economic crimes, and related offences. The team is domiciled in the Executive Office of the President, chaired by the Attorney General, and includes representatives from NIS, EACC, ODPP, and DCI.
But the petitioners say this setup undermines the independence of oversight bodies. They also point to recent Auditor General reports implicating the Presidency in questionable deals, including the Ksh104 billion SHA system procurement and the E-Citizen convenience fee saga.
They argue that placing the anti-corruption team under the Presidency shields the office from scrutiny. The petitioners are now urging the court to issue conservatory orders halting MAT-WAC’s implementation until the case is fully heard and determined.
