An appeals court has shielded Ruto's 21 advisers from removal

The claim that an appeals court has shielded President Ruto's 21 advisers from removal is indeed accurate, a development that has ignited significant legal and public scrutiny. This shielding came after a High Court ruling in January 2026, delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, had nullified the appointments of these 21 presidential advisors. The subsequent intervention by the appeals court has allowed these advisors to return to work, effectively overturning the earlier decision and granting them a temporary reprieve, a move that the government successfully argued was necessary to prevent the Executive Office from being incapacitated. The appeals court's decision has not been without controversy, triggering legal disputes and raising sharp questions regarding the handling of the case and the broader relationship between the Executive and Judiciary. The successful argument by the government that removing the advisers would cripple the Executive Office highlights the significant operational reliance placed on these individuals, whose appointments were initially challenged. This legal maneuver underscores a recurring tension where judicial decisions impacting presidential appointments are met with swift counter-actions from the government, further complicating the separation of powers. Adding to the complexity, the context reveals a pattern of judges who deliver rulings adverse to the government, such as Justice Bahati Mwamuye, experiencing professional repercussions. The article notes that judges responsible