Muslim political leaders have rejected a controversial ruling by the Supreme Court of Kenya that affirmed inheritance rights for children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers, regardless of marital status.

The landmark decision, delivered on Monday, Muslim leaders say infringes on religious freedom and contradicts constitutional provisions that safeguard the application of Islamic law on personal matters.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court stated that all children—whether born within or outside marriage—must be treated equally in inheritance matters.

It effectively halts any application of Islamic inheritance principles that exclude children born out of wedlock from their father’s estate.

The case that led to the ruling involved a protracted family dispute over the estate of a deceased Muslim man.

Children born outside his formal Islamic marriage had been excluded from inheriting, prompting a legal battle that originated in the Kadhi court and culminated in the Supreme Court.

The ruling has been met with strong opposition from Muslim leaders and political figures in Majority Muslim counties.

They maintain that the Constitution protects the application of Islamic personal law in matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

Wajir Deputy Governor Ahmed Muhumed Caato described the ruling as a form of judicial overreach that risks destabilizing the social and religious fabric of the country.

“Judicial excesses can be destabilising, especially when they infringe on the core formations of Kenya’s pluralistic society. In this case, the place of constitutional exceptions—particularly Islamic inheritance and Muslim family law—must be protected,” he said.

Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale, a staunch defender of Islamic values, rejected the ruling outright.

“They can make any judgment they feel, but on matters of Islamic inheritance, marriage, divorce, and family values—which fall under the jurisdiction of the Kadhis’ Courts—we follow the teachings of the Holy Quran. Period. It is up to them,” he said.

Former Mandera Senator Billow Kerrow noted the ruling was “ultra vires” the Constitution and accused the court of exceeding its jurisdiction.

“The Supreme Court has no business interpreting Islamic law based on their personal whims. This is not just overreach—it is ridiculous,” he emphasized.

Nyali MP Mohammed Ali stated that the ruling violates Article 24(4) of the Constitution, which explicitly permits the application of Islamic law to personal matters for Muslims in Kenya.

“This is a blatant contradiction of the Constitution. The court’s decision to now prohibit Islamic personal law carries significant implications and must be challenged,” he warned.

“Yes, we live in a secular country, but Muslims are governed by the same Constitution that allows us the freedom to live in accordance with the dictates of our faith and the Holy Quran—not man-made ideologies,” Ali added.

Abdinasir Aden, the CEO of Northern Advocacy Organization underscored that while the court’s ruling emphasizes the constitutional right of all children to equal treatment under the law, such interpretations risk undermining religious freedoms guaranteed under the same Constitution.

“We can predict that the ruling will trigger a renewed debate over the scope and limitations of constitutional interpretation in relation to religious law in Kenya.”

The Council of Imams and Muslim Preachers of Kenya (CIPK), the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (SUPKEM), and other faith-based groups have also rejected the ruling, citing religious autonomy and jurisdictional overreach.