President William Ruto’s executive directive to allocate 20 percent of affordable housing units specifically to teachers and police officers has been declared unconstitutional.

The High Court ruled that the directive has no legal basis, dealing a major blow to a pact the head of State cited as the foundation for the plan.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi said the president cannot introduce preferential allocation criteria outside the Affordable Housing Act and its regulations.

Doing so, the judge noted, violates constitutional principles of equality, transparency, and the rule of law. She argued that all Kenyan taxpayers contribute to the program and hold equal rights to it, meaning a presidential pact cannot override existing statutory allocation criteria.

“A declaration is hereby issued that the pronouncements made by the President on June 3, 2025, and September 13, 2025, absent a statutory or policy basis, are of no legal effect and cannot lawfully alter or supplement the criteria for allocation of housing units established under the Affordable Housing Act,” the judge said.

The ruling ensures a level playing field, keeping housing distribution fair, competitive, and transparent for ordinary taxpayers.

While Article 132 of the Constitution grants the President authority to direct and coordinate executive functions, the court has made it clear that this power does not allow the executive to bypass laws passed by Parliament.

Authorities and legal experts suggest that upholding the rule of law in this manner ultimately boosts long-term confidence of the masses in the fairness of Kenya’s public infrastructure and housing spaces.

This swift development, however, raises critical questions about executive oversight. Did the Attorney General fail to advise the President on the legality of the affordable housing promise?

For ordinary Kenyans waiting on the unpredictable lottery of affordable housing, the ruling is quite okay as it generally protects equal access to public resources.

For the political executive, it serves as a stark lesson that presidential directives must undergo holistic legal reviews before they are announced to the public.

Robust history

The High Court’s decision to overturn President Ruto’s directive is not an isolated incident. Kenya has a robust history of judicial independence where courts frequently check executive power. Here goes some examples:

Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) Ruling in 2021 and 2022 saw High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court stop the BBI, a constitutional amendment push heavily championed by former President Uhuru Kenyatta and the late leader Raila Odinga. The courts ruled the process unconstitutional, stating that the President could not initiate a popular initiative to amend the Constitution.

In 2023, the trend continued with the Housing Levy Declaration. Early in President Ruto’s term, the High Court declared the initial introduction of the Affordable Housing Levy unconstitutional because it was discriminatory, mostly targeted formally employed Kenyans, and lacked a proper legal framework. This forced the government to go back to Parliament to draft and pass the Affordable Housing Act, 2024.

Still during the same year (2025), Chief Administrative Secretaries (CAS) appointments were declared illegal. The High Court managed to overturn President Ruto’s appointment of 50 CAS, ruling that the creation of an additional 23 positions beyond the 27 originally recommended by the Public Service Commission was unconstitutional.

During the former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s government in 2020, an executive order that appeared to place independent constitutional commissions and tribunals under the control of ministries and state departments collapsed. The High Court quashed sections of the order, re-affirming that the President cannot use executive orders to undermine the independence of constitutional bodies.