The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNHCR) has called for accountability over public funds paid to former presidential advisers, saying the appointments were unconstitutional and the officials should return the money they earned.

In a statement shared on X on Saturday, February 14, 2026, the Commission emphasised that those who accepted the roles should have known they were not legally valid and must now be held responsible for the misuse of public resources.

“It is time to pursue the former advisors of William Ruto to refund the public money they earned. They ought to have known that the offices they were handpicked to run were unconstitutional ab initio. They should have rejected them. They did not. Now they must face the music,” Kenya National Commission on Human Rights statement reads.

KNHCR further noted that public trust hinges on proper vetting and respect for the Constitution, warning that ignoring legal frameworks in appointments undermines governance.

The Commission stressed that enforcing accountability in such cases protects taxpayers and ensures government officials act within their legal mandate.

The Commission concluded that legal remedies must be pursued rigorously to deter future violations and maintain integrity in public administration.

Ruto advisors suffer another blow in bid to be allowed in office for 6 more months

President William Ruto’s advisors suffered a blow after a Nairobi High Court dismissed their application that was seeking orders to stay a ruling that declared their offices unconstitutional.

Makau Mutua, David Ndii, and 19 others, through a notice of motion filed on January 27, 2026, wanted the court to halt the implementation of the judgement until their application is heard and determined.

Dismissing the application on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Justice Bahati Mwamuye has stated that the court’s judgement was clear and provided lawful alternatives that exist and other aspects with respect to the quashed offices.

Judge Mwamuye also noted that it is important to underscore that while the party making an application may change, if the substance of what is being sought and the grounds of arguments in support of the same are the same, then the doctrine of res judicata bars the second attempt.