Petitioners move to court, wants CS Duale declared unfit to hold office

In the constitutional petition, the lawyers challenge comments allegedly made by Duale on July 20, 2026, while addressing a gathering in Lafey Constituency.

The petitioners state that although Duale later clarified that the proverb was a figurative Somali expression referring to entrenched habits and not intended to demean or target any ethnic community, the court should determine whether the remarks met the constitutional standards expected of a State officer.

They argue that the case goes beyond the literal meaning of the proverb and raises broader constitutional questions regarding the conduct of State officers when making public statements in Kenya's politically sensitive environment, particularly ahead of the General Election.

The petitioners contend that State officers are bound by Articles 10, 27, 28, 33, 73, 75, 129, 152 and 232 of the Constitution, which require them to uphold national unity, equality, human dignity, integrity, accountability and professionalism in the exercise of public authority.

According to the petition, Cabinet Secretaries are held to a higher constitutional standard of conduct and must avoid public communication that could reasonably be perceived as advancing ethnic division, partisan political interests or undermining national cohesion.

In support of their case, the lawyers rely on the findings of the Akiwumi Commission Report, the Kiliku Parliamentary Committee Report and the Waki Commission Report, arguing that Kenya's history demonstrates how inflammatory political rhetoric and ethnic mobilisation have contributed to election-related violence.

They are asking the High Court to declare that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech, ethnic incitement, vilification or advocacy of hatred as prohibited under Article 33(2) of the Constitution.

Among the orders sought is a declaration that, should the court find Duale's remarks amounted to ethnic vilification contrary to the Constitution, he acted inconsistently with the constitutional principles of leadership and integrity and is therefore constitutionally unfit to continue serving as a Cabinet Secretary or in any other State office unless the conduct is remedied in accordance with the law.

The petitioners also seek an order of mandamus compelling the first respondent to honour summons issued by the interested party and participate in its proceedings, arguing that failure by a State officer to comply with lawful summons undermines accountability, integrity and the rule of law.