Court clears path for the Sh7tr debt petition case

President William Ruto assents to parliamentary Bills at State House, Nairobi, on June 23, 2026. [PCS]

President William Ruto’s administration has suffered a setback after the High Court declined to strike out a petition challenging the legality of Kenya’s Sh7 trillion public debt, clearing the way for a full hearing.

In a series of rulings delivered at Milimani Law Courts, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Francis Gikonyo, Moses Ado and Roselyne Aburili dismissed six applications that had sought to terminate or weaken the case filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah and eight co-petitioners.

The court rejected an application by the Attorney General Dorcas Oduor to have the petition struck out on grounds that the dispute should be handled by the Auditor-General and Parliament.

It also dismissed requests by four former and current state officers to be removed from the proceedings, and separately struck out the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from the case, citing its immunity under international law.

At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional petition challenging what the petitioners term “odious debt” amounting to Sh6.95 trillion, allegedly incurred between the 2014/2015 and 2024/2025 financial years across two administrations.

The judges ruled that the matter raises serious constitutional questions that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court and cannot be resolved through audit processes alone.

Justice Ado, reading the unanimous decision, said the case goes beyond public debt audit and challenges the legality of borrowing, constitutional compliance in public finance management and possible liability of public officers.

“The dispute transcends audit of public debt. It challenges the legality of public borrowing and alleged violations of constitutional principles,” he said.

The Attorney General, alongside the Treasury Principal Secretary, National Assembly, Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu, former Auditor-General Edward Ouko and the Central Bank of Kenya, had argued that the case was premature and should first go through ongoing audits.

But the court disagreed, saying the petition raises allegations of constitutional violations already committed over a period of years, including disputed borrowing and Eurobond transactions.

The bench also dismissed claims that the court would be interfering with the mandate of other constitutional institutions, saying judicial intervention is justified where constitutional breaches are alleged.

“To decline jurisdiction would amount to abdication of a mandate expressly conferred by the Constitution,” Justice Ado noted.

In a separate ruling, the judges declined to remove four public officials from the case, holding that Article 226(5) of the Constitution allows personal liability where unlawful use of public funds is alleged.

They ruled that the officials remain necessary parties for the effective determination of the dispute.

However, the court allowed the IMF to exit the proceedings, citing immunity protections under the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, which Kenya has ratified.

“This court has no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings against the IMF,” the bench ruled.

Following the decision, the Attorney General indicated the State would appeal and sought a stay of proceedings, but the request was declined.

The petition, filed on April 24, 2025, challenges public debt obligations allegedly accrued over a decade, including Eurobond loans and offshore transactions. The matter will be mentioned again on July 22, 2026, for further directions.