A decision by the Court of Appeal has temporarily stopped the enforcement of a High Court judgment that had declared several advisory positions in the Office of the President unconstitutional.
The order issued on Friday means that the affected advisors will remain in office for now as the government prepares to challenge the earlier ruling.
In its decision, the Appellate court allowed an application by the government seeking to suspend the High Court judgment until an intended appeal is heard and determined.
The judges explained that the government’s appeal raises important legal questions that deserve to be examined fully before the earlier ruling can take effect.
The court said the key issue in such applications is whether failing to grant a stay could make the appeal meaningless if it later succeeds.
According to the judges, the court must carefully consider whether the effects of the earlier judgment can be reversed if the appeal is successful.
Earlier, the High Court had ruled that the creation of offices held by several individuals serving as presidential advisors was unconstitutional.
The decision affected respondents listed from the 3rd to the 23rd in the case, all of whom hold advisory roles linked to the Office of the President.
While reviewing the government’s request to suspend the ruling, the Court of Appeal examined whether the consequences of the High Court judgment would cause problems that could not easily be corrected later.
The judges also considered whether financial compensation could address any harm caused if the ruling was implemented immediately.
The court emphasized that each request for a stay must be evaluated based on the specific facts of the case. In this matter, the judges noted that there were competing public interest concerns that required careful balance before making a decision.
Lawyers representing the government and other supporting parties argued that implementing the High Court ruling immediately would interfere with the functioning of the Executive.
They told the court that removing the advisors at once could disrupt administrative work within the Office of the President.
The lawyers also warned that such a move might create instability because proper handover procedures had not taken place.
According to them, the sudden removal of officials currently performing advisory duties could affect the continuity of government operations.
However, the application was opposed by the first respondent, who argued that suspending the High Court decision would allow actions that had already been declared unconstitutional to continue.
The respondent insisted that the Constitution should be upheld without delay.
During the proceedings, the judges also reviewed earlier decisions involving the former position of Chief Administrative Secretary (CAS), which had previously been ruled unconstitutional.
In one such case, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend the ruling, stating that service offered through offices created in violation of the Constitution could not be justified.
The court had then stated that service performed in violation of the Constitution could not be considered valid in the eyes of the law.
However, the judges said the present case has different circumstances.
They noted that the advisors were already serving in their roles and carrying out their duties when the High Court delivered its judgment.
Because of this, the court observed that removing them immediately could disrupt the day-to-day operations of the Office of the President.
The judges also noted that concerns about possible duplication of roles would be addressed when the appeal is fully heard.
After considering all arguments, the court concluded that the applicant had met the legal conditions required for a stay order to be granted.
The execution of the High Court judgment has been suspended until the appeal is heard and determined.
The judges also recommended that the President of the Court of Appeal prioritize the hearing of the case because it raises issues of public importance.
They further directed that the question of legal costs will be decided once the appeal process is completed.
