In a sharp statement, Havi described the decision as unconstitutional and went further to term it a serious violation of the law, saying it amounted to what he called an impeachable offence.
“This is an impeachable offense. In fact, it is treason against the People of Kenya,” Havi stated.
His remarks come after President Ruto announced the formation of the committee as part of efforts to strengthen Kenya’s preparedness in response to the regional health concern.
In a statement issued on Thursday, May 28, the President said the committee will be led by Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and will oversee the country’s national response strategy in the event of any Ebola-related emergency.
According to the President, the committee will coordinate a whole-of-government approach aimed at strengthening public awareness, improving preparedness, and mobilising both technical and financial resources to address any potential threats linked to the outbreak.
“The Government will establish a National Response Committee under the leadership of the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs to coordinate a whole-of-government and whole-of-society response, strengthen public awareness and preparedness, and mobilise the technical and financial resources necessary to address any eventualities arising from the Ebola outbreak,” Ruto said.
The announcement is part of Kenya’s broader efforts to strengthen its health security systems following reports of Ebola cases in neighbouring countries.
The government has in recent years increased its focus on preparedness and rapid response mechanisms in order to mitigate the risk of cross-border disease transmission.
However, Havi’s comments have introduced a new layer of political and legal scrutiny to the directive, with his strong language expected to trigger debate among legal experts, policymakers, and the public.
While the government has maintained that the committee is intended to enhance coordination and improve preparedness, critics like Havi argue that such decisions must strictly adhere to constitutional procedures and institutional mandates.
The controversy highlights the growing tension between government emergency response initiatives and legal interpretations of executive authority in matters of national coordination.
As the discussion continues, attention is likely to focus on both the legal basis of the committee and the urgency of regional health preparedness, especially given the potential risks associated with Ebola outbreaks.