Head of Public Service Felix Koskei, President William Ruto’s speech writer Eric Ng’eno, former Treasury Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo and Attorney General Dorcas Oduor have suffered a blow after the High Court rejected their bid to be removed from a lawsuit alleging that the government secretly built surveillance software to manage its public image.
Justice Peter Mulwa of the High Court Commercial Division dismissed the applications, meaning the officials will remain in the case filed over claims that a confidential digital system was developed to monitor online conversations, manage political messaging and shape public perception around the government.
The case was filed by software developer Mary Wachuka Maina, the proprietor of Jipe Inc., who claims she was engaged to build software linked to strategic communications, online monitoring and management of social media activity around President William Ruto’s administration.
The matter first drew public attention after allegations emerged that the software was meant to help the state track critics, manage public opinion and suppress negative online reactions against the government ahead of the 2027 political season.
Koskei, Kiptoo and Oduor had previously denied knowledge of the alleged deal, saying they were strangers to the developer and the claimed contract, while also arguing that any software intended for mass surveillance or online manipulation would be illegal under the Constitution and data protection laws.
Koskei separately denied involvement after the story first emerged, saying he had never met Wachuka and was not aware of any government procurement of such software.
The latest ruling does not determine whether the allegations are true, but it keeps the senior officials in the suit and allows the case to proceed, placing the alleged secret surveillance software project back at the centre of a wider debate on state propaganda, privacy, public procurement and abuse of digital tools in politics.
The case now leaves the court to examine whether there was any contract, who was involved, whether public offices were used, and whether the alleged software project violated procurement, privacy and constitutional safeguards.