A group of concerned Kenyans has filed a case in court requesting Chief Justice Martha Koome to establish a panel to evaluate President William Ruto’s mental fitness. They are invoking Article 144 of the Kenyan Constitution, which allows for the removal of a president due to mental or physical incapacity.
The petitioners argue that under President Ruto, Kenya has become a police State, regretting that no lawmaker is courageous to initiate this motion in Parliament as required by law.
To support their case, the group reportedly presented evidence, which they claim proves Ruto’s mental incapacity, focusing on his alleged pattern of excessive lying.
Central to the petition is a study from the University of Massachusetts, which found that the average person lies between one and two times per day.
In contrast, however, the petitioners allege that President Ruto has lied more than 5,000 times in two years, far above the 1,095 lies expected of an average person.
They further argue that Ruto’s false statements, both at home and abroad, raise serious concerns about his mental capacity.
Among the alleged lies they highlighted are contradictory claims about Kenya’s economic recovery, tax reforms, and the controversial sale of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to foreign interests.
The petitioners further claim that President Ruto’s leadership has left the country on “autopilot,” alleging rampant corruption, theft of public resources, and poorly thought-out policies going unchecked.
They argue that Ruto’s mental incapacity has allowed looters to exploit Kenya’s resources, adding that his leadership style has alienated the public, particularly with policies like the Social Health Authority.
According to them, these signs suggest that the president is no longer aware of the country’s state, leaving Kenya vulnerable to further decline.
They have called on the Chief Justice to take swift action by convening a panel to review their evidence and, if warranted, establish a medical board to assess the president’s mental health.
The case, if successful, could mark a turning point in Kenya’s political history by challenging the mental fitness of a sitting president.
It also raises questions about the role of the Judiciary in holding leaders accountable when other avenues, such as Parliament, may be compromised by political realities.