In a ruling delivered on Thursday, Justice David Mburu found that petitioner Benedict Wandeto failed to present enough evidence proving that the government enforced the proposed restrictions before Parliament passed them into law.
Wandeto had challenged Ruto’s September 2, 2026, remarks, arguing that the president ordered government agencies to enforce the restrictions within five days while the Local Content Bill, 2025, was still pending in Parliament. That proposed legislation aims to require foreign companies operating in Kenya to prioritize local businesses, workers, suppliers, and Kenyan-made goods.
Seeking to block any immediate crackdown, Wandeto asked the court to declare the President’s remarks unconstitutional and void and to stop state agencies from acting on the alleged directive. Justice Mburu agreed with the petitioner on a core legal principle: the government cannot enforce a bill before lawmakers approve it.
“I agree with the petitioner that a bill pending before Parliament has no force of law and cannot, without an independent existing legal basis, be enforced through executive or administrative actions,” the judge said.
Mburu noted that the Executive branch cannot act as though Parliament has already enacted a bill, nor can it impose restrictions that rely solely on pending legislation for legal authority. However, the judge determined that Wandeto did not prove the government actually enforced the Local Content Bill’s provisions or issued a binding administrative order to carry them out.
“The petitioner has not identified a prohibition of the pending local content bill 2025 that was actually enforced against an identifiable person or business pursuant to the impugned pronouncement,” Mburu said.
Representing the respondents, the Attorney General argued that President Ruto merely outlined the government’s broader policy intentions. State lawyers maintained that officials would ground any enforcement actions in existing immigration, licensing, and business registration laws rather than the pending bill.
The court also dismissed claims that Ruto’s statement infringed upon constitutional protections covering discrimination, freedom of movement, property rights, and fair administrative action. While acknowledging that Kenya’s Constitution shields foreign nationals from unlawful discrimination, Justice Mburu pointed out that Wandeto failed to show authorities took adverse administrative action against any specific individual based solely on their nationality.
“The petitioner has not proved the alleged violations of articles 27, 39, 40, and 47 of the Constitution to the required standard,” he ruled.
Wandeto further contended that the announcement violated Kenya’s regional and international commitments under the East African Community (EAC) Treaty, the Common Market Protocol, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
Again, Mburu found no concrete evidence that the state enforced a blanket ban or carried out mass deportations in breach of those treaties. While the judge recognized that the petition raised valid constitutional questions, he ultimately declined to grant the requested orders.
President Ruto’s initial remarks sparked widespread anxiety among foreign small-business owners across Kenya. Following the September 2 announcement, hundreds of Burundian nationals crowded their embassy in Nairobi seeking emergency travel documents out of fear of business closures and harassment.
Reports of intimidation and attacks against foreign traders soon surfaced, prompting the government to step in and clarify its stance.
On September 8, State House introduced a 90-day grace period allowing foreign nationals to regularize their immigration status, work permits, business registrations, and operating licenses before authorities began strictly enforcing existing laws. Officials also issued a stern warning to the public against harassing or intimidating foreign business owners.
Leave a Reply