“KSh2.3 BILLION CAR GRANT ROW!” — RELIGIOUS LEADERS, CIVIL SOCIETY WARN AGAINST ‘UNHOLY UNION’ OF STATE ARMS
Joint Statement Urges Supreme Court to Protect Taxpayers as Judges’ Vehicle Benefits Face Constitutional Scrutiny
By Jeff Kizzilah Digital Editor
Religious leaders and civil society organisations have raised alarm over what they describe as an “unholy union” of Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary, warning that public institutions risk protecting their own privileges at the expense of ordinary Kenyans.
In a strongly worded joint press statement released on Tuesday, the organisations called on all constitutional institutions to uphold the Constitution, safeguard public resources and prioritise the interests of taxpayers amid growing concerns over the cost of living, unemployment, school fees, healthcare and the country’s tax burden.
The statement comes as the Supreme Court prepares to determine a dispute concerning the taxation of a car grant for judges, with the signatories insisting that no institution should place itself above the Constitution.
KSh2.3 BILLION AT THE CENTRE OF THE ROW
The organisations estimate that a KSh10 million vehicle grant for each of the judicial positions covered by their available figures would amount to approximately KSh2.3 billion before tax, or KSh1.61 billion after tax, every four years.
They, however, clarified that these figures are estimates based on available information and assumptions, rather than confirmed actual expenditure or a judicial determination of the grant’s legality.
The groups questioned the justification and proportionality of the disputed benefit, noting that judges also have access to official chauffeur-driven transport, while the grant is intended for private vehicle use.
They argued that the proposed expenditure must be assessed against the needs of ordinary citizens who continue to grapple with the high cost of living and pressure on household incomes.
According to the statement, the money involved could alternatively support frontline healthcare, essential medicines, school infrastructure, water provision, agricultural support and other critical public services.
“The issue is not whether judges deserve fair remuneration. They do. The issue is whether a private vehicle benefit of this magnitude is legally justified, equitable and defensible to citizens who finance the State,” the organisations stated.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE VERSUS PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The signatories acknowledged that judicial independence is essential for protecting judges from intimidation, political interference and financial retaliation.
However, they cautioned that judicial independence should not be interpreted as immunity from constitutional scrutiny or a reason to weaken accountability over public expenditure.
The statement referenced Article 160(4) of the Constitution, which protects judges against disadvantageous variation of their remuneration and benefits, and Article 230, which establishes the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) and sets out principles governing public officers’ remuneration.
The organisations urged the Supreme Court to clarify the relationship between these constitutional provisions while considering fiscal sustainability, equity, transparency and the public interest.
They also called for any actual or properly raised apparent conflicts of interest to be addressed under applicable law, stressing that public confidence in impartial justice must remain paramount.
SUPREME COURT URGED TO PUT TAXPAYERS FIRST
The groups called on the Supreme Court to determine the legal status of the disputed benefit and clarify the constitutional protections governing judicial remuneration.
They further urged all public institutions to ensure that public expenditure has a lawful basis and that benefits funded by taxpayers are subject to appropriate transparency and accountability.
The organisations also called on religious institutions, civil society groups, professional associations, universities, workers’ organisations and the media to sustain informed, peaceful and principled engagement on public spending.
They maintained that their demand was not for a weakened Judiciary, but for an independent institution whose authority is matched by integrity, accountability and public confidence.
“Public money is a public trust, not an entitlement to be expanded without justification,” the statement declared.
WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT?
The joint statement was signed by 16 religious and civil society organisations, including the Joint Forum of Religious Organisations (U-JFRO), the Seventh Day Adventist Church, Friends Church, Presbyterian Church of East Africa, Baptists Church, NCCK Nairobi Region County Coordinating Committee, Muslim Professionals League Africa, the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), Transparency International Kenya, Badili Africa, Youth Alive! Kenya, PAWA254, the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi!, the National Integrity Alliance and the Okoa Uchumi Campaign.
The organisations grounded their appeal in constitutional principles of sovereignty, social justice, integrity, transparency and accountability, alongside religious teachings on impartial justice.
They concluded by calling for the Constitution to bind every institution equally and for public resources to serve the public good.
By Jeff Kizzilah | Digital Editor
LiveNation254 Media | ePaper Online
Fastest and Credible
www.livenation254.com
