Tom Ojienda says he will oppose women CS appointments that disrupt the cabinet despite court order
By David Nthua and Zipporah Ngwatu, July 2, 2026Kisumu Senator Tom Ojienda has now said that he would not support any Cabinet appointment that would disrupt the broad-based government arrangement.
This is even as President William Ruto faces court pressure to fix the gender composition of his Cabinet.
Ojienda spoke to a local TV station on Thursday, July 2, 2026, where he said the president must consider gender alongside regional balance, political representation and the wider architecture of the current Cabinet.
His remarks come after a High Court ruling found that the Cabinet, as presently constituted, does not meet the constitutional two-thirds gender requirement.
The majority judgment was delivered by E.K. Ogola, the Presiding Judge, and Hon. Stephen Githinji.
Jairus Ngaah issued a dissenting judgment, although he also agreed with the majority that the Cabinet falls short of the two-thirds gender principle.
Court ruling
The court was clear that the current Cabinet has a gender problem.
The ruling reads: “A declaration is hereby made that the current composition of the Cabinet does not comply with Article 27(8) of the Constitution because more than two-thirds of its members are of the same gender.”
The judges further directed the appointing authority to act.
“The Appointing Authority is hereby directed to make appointments of Cabinet Secretaries in conformity to Article 27(8) of the Constitution within 120 days from the date of this judgement,” the ruling reads.
The court also held that the gender rule is not optional in appointive bodies.
“A declaration is hereby made that Article 27(8) of the Constitution is immediate, mandatory and fully enforceable in relation to appointive bodies, including the Cabinet established under Article 152 of the Constitution,” the ruling stated.
That finding has placed Ruto in a difficult political and constitutional position.
To comply with the ruling, the president may have to appoint at least two more women to the Cabinet, reshuffle the existing Cabinet, or appeal the decision and seek a stay.
Ojienda objection
Ojienda, however, said the president should not make appointments blindly in the name of gender compliance if the move would weaken the broad-based cabinet arrangement.
“The President, as the CEO of the country, must consider representation equal to regions, issues, and other representations of assets that will go to the appointment of the cabinet.
“That is what he did when he appointed the cabinet as it is now,” Ojienda said.
The senator said he would defend the current cabinet because it reflects the political arrangement that brought opposition-linked leaders into government.
“So I will defend the cabinet as it is now and then the broad-based cabinet as it is now.
“If the call to appoint two women goes to upset the framework of the Cabinet as setting up the broad-based representation, then I will not go to support it,” he said.
Ojienda made it clear that his objection would arise if the appointment of two women Cabinet Secretaries led to the removal of leaders who are part of the broad-based deal.
“Because if appointing two women would mean doing away with CSs like Opiyo Wandayi, John Mbadi and others who are in the broad-based arrangement, then we are not going to support it,” he said.
Political dilemma
The remarks expose the political cost of the court ruling.
On one side, the court has said the Cabinet must comply with Article 27(8).
On the other side, Ojienda is warning that gender compliance should not be used to dismantle the broad-based Cabinet.
/X
“The president takes into account many other factors apart from gender, for example, fair representation, non-discrimination and others.
“As of now, I think the way to go is for the President to appeal this decision and get a stay,” Ojienda said.
The debate now goes beyond the appointment of two women.
It touches the survival of the broad-based government, the place of ODM-linked Cabinet Secretaries in Ruto’s administration and the president’s next legal move after the High Court ruling.
For Ruto, the choice is no longer merely administrative. It is constitutional, legal and deeply political.