President William Ruto has been plunged into a fresh political and constitutional storm after Safina presidential candidate Jimi Wanjigi declared that his term expires next week, following a High Court ruling that the presidential election should have been held in August 2026 rather than 2027.
Mr Wanjigi seized on Friday’s judgment by Justice Mugure Thande to launch a direct challenge to the President’s authority, arguing that the court had not extended Dr Ruto’s term but had only suspended implementation of its decision to prevent a constitutional crisis.
“Let me say, William Ruto, your time is up. On Tuesday, you become nothing more than a president that has been given mandate by a court because of logistical issues, nothing else,” Mr Wanjigi said during a press conference on Friday.
“Your term is over as of Tuesday, you have now just been given a template by a court, your term has not been extended.”
The remarks came hours after the High Court ruled that Article 136 of the Constitution requires a presidential election to be held on the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year, a finding that places the election date on August 11, 2026.
Justice Thande, however, suspended implementation of the decision until after the 2027 General Election, effectively preventing the judgment from triggering an immediate national election.
Mr Wanjigi nonetheless interpreted the ruling as a significant limitation on the President’s powers.
He invoked Article 134 of the Constitution, which governs the exercise of presidential powers during a period when the office is in transition.
“That means, if we're to read the Constitution, Article 134 describes a temporary president for such a circumstance, and there are various things you can and cannot do,” Mr Wanjigi said.
“So do not pretend you can make any decisions on our behalf any more. You cannot pretend to have a national dialogue; you have no legitimacy, William Ruto, you cannot even fire a minister or appoint a new officer after Tuesday – we shall challenge you.”
Safina claims constitutional victory
The Safina leader described the judgment as a victory for the Constitution and credited his deputy party leader, constitutional lawyer Willis Otieno, with driving the legal campaign challenging the 2027 election date.
“This is a great day for the Constitution of Kenya, and we as Safina party, want to give a great thank you to the High Court that has upheld our Constitution, and to the excellent work of our deputy party leader Willis Otieno,” Mr Wanjigi said.
“He has been excellent in court. He tried to do civic education to Kenyans the last one year. He even sought discussions with IEBC who ignored him, and now today we have a Constitutional victory that we must be thankful about as Kenyans.”
Mr Otieno has for more than a year argued that Kenya’s next presidential election should have been held in 2026.
His argument is based on Article 136(2)(a), which provides that a presidential election shall be held on the second Tuesday in August “in every fifth year”.
The lawyer has maintained that the constitutional wording means the election should take place within the fifth year following the previous poll, rather than after a full five-year presidential term.
He has previously argued that the 2022 election, held on August 9, places the next constitutional election date in August 2026.
“The Constitution is very clear, elections are to be held in the fifth year, not after five years. That means August 2026, not 2027,” Mr Otieno said in an earlier explanation of his position. (
The argument has been contested, and the question has already reached the Supreme Court.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court struck out an application seeking leave to pursue a petition on the election date, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the pre-election dispute in the manner it had been presented. The court did not, however, determine the substantive question of whether the election should be held in 2026 or 2027.
Ruling creates political uncertainty
Friday’s High Court decision has therefore reopened one of the most consequential constitutional debates in Kenya’s political landscape.
At the heart of the dispute is a tension between the constitutional timetable for elections and the length of a presidential term.
The Constitution provides that the President holds office from the date of swearing-in until the next President is sworn in. At the same time, Article 136 establishes the timing of presidential elections.
The High Court's interpretation has now given fresh ammunition to politicians and activists who have argued that the country has been operating on the wrong electoral timetable.
