Uhuru to hand over Jubilee Party leadership after court ruling

• Mr. Kenyatta said that the ruling is a reaffirmation of Kenya's democratic maturity and will honour the directive.

Former President Uhuru Kenyatta, during a previous Jubilee Party meeting. PHOTO | COURTESY

Retired President Uhuru Kenyatta has announced that he will step down from his role as the Jubilee Party leader following a ruling by the High Court.

The September 14 ruling delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi barred retired presidents from holding political party office for more than six months after leaving State House, but they can join or participate in party political activities.

Through the office of the Communications Secretary at the Office of the 4th President, Mr. Kenyatta said that the ruling is a reaffirmation of Kenya's democratic maturity and will honour the directive.

"He notes that the court's ruling is not a restriction on his political life...the 4th President of the Republic of Kenya acknowledges that leadership is not the chair one occupies; it is the trust one cultivates," a statement read in part.

He reaffirmed that he is willing to lawfully hand over his position in line with the party's constitution, expressing confidence that the transition shall be seamless.

"In regard to the long-delayed handover of the Party chairmanship, the Office clarifies that this process was not stalled by reluctance, but by a contested internal dispute that required legal clarity. With the court's guidance, that path is now clear," he said.

"H.E. Uhuru Kenyatta welcomes this new chapter for Jubilee, built on the rule of law, guided by the Party's constitution, and carried forward by the next generation of leadership."

Justice Mugambi was delivering his ruling after a petition was filed arguing that Mr. Kenyatta was violating Section 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.

Dismissing the petition, he said former presidents occupy a unique political position and could wield significant influence capable of affecting genuine political competition.

The court also relied on the historical circumstances surrounding the enactment of the law in 2003, when Parliament sought to prevent a former president from retaining political power through a successor.