David Maraga: The man who wanted Parliament dissolved
By Mustafa Juma, June 5, 2026When former Chief Justice David Maraga advised then President Uhuru Kenyatta to dissolve Parliament in September 2020, it marked one of the boldest constitutional moments in Kenya’s modern political history.
No Chief Justice before him had attempted such a move.
To supporters, Maraga became the face of constitutional courage, a judge willing to confront political power and defend the spirit of the 2010 Constitution. To critics, he crossed into dangerous political territory by pushing the country toward an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Nearly six years later, the debate remains alive.
On Friday, June 5, 2026, a five-judge bench ruled that Maraga’s advisory recommending the dissolution of Parliament over its failure to implement the two-thirds gender rule was premature and unconstitutional because it was not properly transmitted to the Attorney General and Parliament as required under the Constitution.
Yet even as the court faulted the process followed by Maraga, the judges delivered another powerful message: Parliament’s obligation to implement the gender principle has never expired.
In effect, the court partially vindicated the constitutional concerns that informed Maraga’s dramatic advisory.
The constitutional rebellion
Maraga’s 2020 advisory emerged from years of frustration over Parliament’s repeated failure to enact legislation implementing the constitutional requirement that no more than two-thirds of members of elective public bodies should be of the same gender.
The provision, entrenched in Article 81 of the Constitution, was seen as one of the key reforms intended to correct the historical exclusion of women from political leadership.
Despite court orders and repeated deadlines, Parliament failed to pass the necessary laws for nearly a decade.
Maraga argued that the Constitution itself had provided a remedy for such legislative disobedience under Article 261(7): dissolution of Parliament.
In his advisory to President Kenyatta, Maraga stated that Parliament had persistently ignored constitutional commands and court orders, making dissolution unavoidable.
At the time, the move sent shockwaves through Kenya’s political establishment.
No one was certain what dissolving Parliament would look like in practice.
Would there be a by-election? Would the Senate remain? Would the Executive continue functioning? Could the country survive the political and economic uncertainty?
Those questions triggered intense legal battles.
Thirdway Alliance and the constitutional loophole
Through lawyer Mutuma Gichuru, the party argued that Parliament had become unlawfully constituted by failing to enact the gender rule legislation.
The party further sought a declaration that Parliament would automatically stand dissolved if the president failed to act within a “reasonable time” after receiving the Chief Justice’s advisory.
Thirdway Alliance also argued that dissolution of the National Assembly would not necessarily collapse the entire structure of Parliament, proposing that Senate functions could temporarily continue to avoid a constitutional vacuum.
The petition exposed the grey areas within Article 261, particularly the absence of a clear timeline compelling the President to dissolve Parliament once advised by the Chief Justice.
It was a legal and political puzzle Kenya had never confronted before.
A court ruling that cuts both ways
The latest judgement has now clarified several constitutional questions.
The five-judge bench ruled that Maraga’s advisory was procedurally flawed and premature. However, the court strongly affirmed that Parliament cannot escape its constitutional obligation simply because one parliamentary term ends and another begins.
The judges stated that constitutional orders under Article 261 survive parliamentary transitions and remain binding until fulfilled.
That finding directly rejects the long-standing argument by some lawmakers that the failure of the 11th or 12th Parliament became irrelevant once new legislators were elected.
The court essentially confirmed that legislative inertia cannot defeat constitutional commands.
In many ways, the ruling captures the complexity of Maraga’s legacy on this issue: flawed in execution perhaps, but rooted in a constitutional question the country still has not resolved.
Maraga’s legacy
Maraga built a reputation as one of Kenya’s most independent-minded Chief Justices, particularly after the Supreme Court nullified the 2017 presidential election, another historic first in Africa.
His dissolution advisory further cemented his image as a jurist willing to confront entrenched political interests.
But it also revealed the limitations of constitutional enforcement in Kenya.
Even after the advisory, Parliament was never dissolved.
President Kenyatta did not act on the recommendation, and the political system continued functioning despite the constitutional standoff.
That reality raised uncomfortable questions: What happens when constitutional enforcement mechanisms collide with political practicality? Can courts and judges truly compel political branches to obey the Constitution?
The latest ruling may have settled some procedural issues, but the central constitutional crisis remains unresolved.
More than 15 years after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, Kenya still lacks full implementation of the two-thirds gender principle, one of the Constitution’s most celebrated promises.
And in that unfinished constitutional story, David Maraga remains the man who dared to test the limits of judicial power by attempting to dissolve Parliament itself.