In a ruling delivered by Lawrence Mugambi, the court found that the case presented by the petitioners did not provide sufficient legal grounds to overturn the appointment.
Justice Mugambi stated that the petition lacked merit and therefore could not succeed.
“The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” the judge said while delivering the decision.
The case had been filed by individuals who questioned the legality of Haji’s nomination and appointment to the powerful intelligence position.
They argued that the process through which he was appointed should be reviewed by the court, claiming that it may have violated certain constitutional requirements related to public appointments.
However, after reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, the court concluded that there was no proof showing that the appointment had violated the Constitution or any existing laws that regulate how senior state officials are chosen.
Justice Mugambi explained that under Kenya’s constitutional framework, the President has the authority to appoint certain key public officers.
According to the court, such decisions fall within the discretionary powers granted to the Head of State, provided that the legal procedures outlined in the law are followed.
The judge noted that the Constitution recognizes the role of the President in selecting individuals to serve in critical positions within government institutions.
These appointments are meant to ensure that important offices are filled so that government operations continue smoothly.
In this particular case, the court determined that there was no evidence showing that the President had acted outside the law when appointing Haji to lead the intelligence agency.
As a result, the challenge brought before the court could not stand.
The ruling effectively confirms Haji’s position as the Director-General of the National Intelligence Service, one of the most influential security agencies in the country.
The agency plays a central role in gathering intelligence and advising the government on matters related to national security.
Legal experts say the decision also highlights the limits of judicial intervention in certain government decisions.
While courts have the power to review actions by public officials, judges often examine whether there is clear proof of constitutional violations before interfering with executive decisions.
The case attracted public attention because of the importance of the position involved.
The National Intelligence Service is responsible for collecting and analyzing information that helps protect the country from security threats, making the leadership of the agency a matter of national interest.