The High Court has struck down key provisions of Kenya’s law governing presidential retirement benefits, ruling that retired presidents cannot be denied their constitutional political rights or have their retirement benefits reduced through the contested provisions.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye, in a judgment delivered on Monday, September 21, 2026, declared Sections 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) and the entirety of Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act unconstitutional, null and void.
The judgment has implications for two closely connected issues: the political activities of former presidents and the protection of the benefits they receive after leaving office.
What was the law restricting?
Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act placed restrictions on a retired president’s ability to hold office in a political party after leaving the presidency.
The provision stated that a retired president could not hold office in a political party for more than six months after ceasing to be president.
The challenge to the provision was based partly on Article 38 of the Constitution, which protects the political rights of citizens, including the right to participate in political activities.
Justice Mwamuye found that leaving the presidency does not mean that a former president ceases to be a citizen or loses constitutional political rights.
Once a president leaves office, the judge said, the former head of state no longer exercises the executive and coercive authority attached to the presidency and returns to the position of a private citizen.
The court therefore found that the State could not use the contested provision to control the political life of a person who had already left presidential office.
What happens to presidential retirement benefits?
The ruling also dealt with the financial and other benefits provided to former presidents.
Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act provided a statutory framework through which retirement benefits could be withheld, reduced or otherwise affected in specified circumstances.
The court found these provisions inconsistent with Article 151(3) of the Constitution.
That constitutional provision protects the retirement benefits, facilities and privileges available to a former president from being varied to the former president’s disadvantage during their lifetime.
The court consequently prohibited the respondents from relying on the invalidated provisions to withhold, reduce, withdraw, extinguish or otherwise disadvantageously vary protected retirement benefits.
This means the government and other authorities cannot rely on Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) to alter a former president’s protected benefits in a manner prohibited by the Constitution.
Does the ruling stop Parliament from making laws?
Not entirely.
Justice Mwamuye made an important distinction between Parliament’s constitutional authority to legislate and the use of provisions that have been declared unconstitutional.
The court did not prohibit Parliament from discussing or legislating on matters relating to presidential retirement benefits.
Instead, it stopped the respondents from relying on the specific provisions that the court had declared unconstitutional.
The judge also declined to issue an order that would have amounted to supervising Parliament’s proceedings, noting the importance of separation of powers.
The court further declined to issue a certiorari order because it found that there was no completed parliamentary decision before it that could be quashed.
Why the ruling matters
The judgment comes against the backdrop of a debate over the political role and retirement benefits of former presidents.
It also follows an earlier High Court judgment delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, which upheld Section 6 and found that the restriction on holding political party office beyond six months was constitutionally permissible. That earlier decision was delivered on September 3 and reported publicly on September 15.
The September 21 judgment by Justice Mwamuye takes a different position and declares Section 6 unconstitutional.
The latest ruling therefore adds a significant new development to the legal debate over the political rights of retired presidents.
What the judgment means for former presidents
At its core, the judgment establishes that retirement from the presidency does not end a person’s status as a citizen or automatically remove constitutionally protected political rights.
It also reinforces the constitutional protection surrounding presidential retirement benefits.
However, the judgment does not mean that former presidents retain the powers of the presidency after leaving office. They cease to exercise the executive authority attached to the office and return to the position of private citizens.
The ruling instead concerns what restrictions can lawfully be imposed on those citizens after they leave State House.
For Kenya’s former presidents, the decision therefore has implications beyond party leadership. It addresses the broader question of where the State’s authority over a former head of state ends and the individual’s constitutional rights as a citizen begin.
