The Judiciary has been embroiled in a fresh saga surrounding unregulated billions in allowances given to judges.
Members of Parliament from the Public Accounts Committee, on Wednesday, September 10, pressured the judicial arm of government to provide answers on why it set its own rates separate from those provided for by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC).
The legislators argued that while the Judiciary is independent, its autonomy should not extend to unchecked financial decisions that could burden taxpayers, citing the fact that judges are still public officers.
A circular from July 23, 2019, by the then Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, Anne Amadi, introduced a new system for daily subsistence allowances (per diems).
In the new structure, at the top were the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice, each entitled to a daily local per diem of Ksh30,000. They were followed by all Judges and the Chief Registrar, who were placed in a second tier with an allocation of Ksh25,000 per day.
A third band grouped Chief Magistrates, the Deputy Chief Registrar, the Chief Kadhi, and staff in job groups PLS 16 and 17, with each drawing Ksh20,000 daily. For all other officers and staff, the existing rates were left unchanged.
In her directive, Amadi reportedly instructed the Human Resource Director to enforce the revised structure and copied the memo to the Chief Human Resource Officer (Welfare) to ensure immediate implementation.
However, the review attracted the attention of Auditor General Nancy Gathungu, and this was reflected in a report on the financial statements of the Judiciary for the financial year ended June 30, 2023.
In her findings, Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu flagged irregular domestic travel and subsistence allowances paid to top judicial officers, including the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, all judges, the Chief Registrar, Deputy Chief Registrar, Chief Magistrates, and staff in job groups PLS 16 and 17.
“The SRC circular dated February 2, 2022, set out the applicable domestic travel and subsistence rates for all state and public officers. However, the Judiciary has been paying at rates higher than those authorised by the SRC,” the report stated in part.
The Auditor-General concluded that, by doing so, the Judiciary’s management had breached SRC guidelines, resulting in irregular payments.
The MPs sought answers on the benchmark used by the Judiciary to set the allowances, given that they were not using SRC’s guidelines.
“Who, then, regulates these allowances? Who sets the bar? Because an allowance could be as little as two hundred shillings, but who checks that if someone decides to peg it at a thousand shillings? How are these rates determined?” asked Mathioya MP Edwin Mugo.
“Do you benchmark, perhaps with the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth countries? How exactly? Because, you know, the SRC usually conducts surveys, looking at economic conditions and circumstances, including hotel rates, to arrive at a standard allowance. But then, who actually regulates this? Is it the Judicial Service Commission?” added Mugo, warning that unchecked discretion could lead to disparities across state institutions.
In response, the current Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, Winfridah Mokaya, who also serves as the institution’s accounting officer, defended the contested allowance structure.
She explained that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) had pegged the rates on those applied by the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC). Further, according to the Registrar, the JSC conducted its own benchmarking exercise before SRC released its rates.
Her remarks, however, drew protests from MPs, who dismissed the comparison as misleading. Legislators argued that the PSC operates under its own internal benchmarks for members’ benefits, many of which had already been nullified by the SRC.
They insisted that the Judiciary could not act as though it were exempt from the broader public service remuneration framework.
The controversy comes against the backdrop of growing scrutiny of state officers’ perks, with taxpayers footing hefty bills for allowances ranging from travel to sitting fees.
The committee demanded that the Judiciary furnish it with a copy of the Supreme Court ruling cited as the legal basis for its stand, as well as clarity on how benchmarks were arrived at.
