Activist and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah on Thursday, June 29, filed additional amendments in a petition Challenging Finance Act, 2023.
In the latest amendments, Omtatah and his co-petitioners, Eliud Karanja, Michael Kojo, Benson Odiwuor, Blair Angima, Victor Okuna and Florence Kanyua outlined three grounds on which they asked the High Court to declare some sections of the Finance Act, 2023 unconstitutional.
In the petition, Okiya and six others claimed that the National Treasury Cabinet Secretary and the Speaker of the National Assembly errored in their handling of the Finance Bill which was on Monday, June 26, signed into Law by President William Ruto.
"The Finance Bill contains amendments to several laws that have nothing to do with raising revenue and laws and affects the work of the Senate to which is to protect the interests of counties and their governments," Okiya stated.
Sneaking Provisions into Finance Bill
In particular, the activist noted that twenty-two sections of the Finance Act 2023, were wrongly sneaked in by Members of Parliament during the heated debate on the floor of the National Assembly.
While outlining grounds for asking the Court to quash parts of the Finance Act 2023, Okiya revealed that Sections 18 through to 102 were unprocedurally introduced into the Finance Bill, and subsequently approved by the majority of the MPs.
The petition stated that Section 18 which converted Housing Levy into tax was unprocedurally introduced into the Finance Bill 2023, yet it is going to have wide-ranging consequences on employees.
“Forcing employees to contribute an amount of money based on the applicable blanket deductible percentage without consideration of their existing contractual obligations on their salaries is not reasonable,” Okiya claimed.
Seeking Senate Input
The petition also argued that there were at least thirty-five Sections of the Finance Act 2023, which required the input of the Senate but the National Assembly failed to get the opinion of Senators.
The Busia Senator claimed the actions of the National Assembly violated Article 110(3) of the Constitution by introducing the Finance Bill, 2023 to the plenary without first determining if the legislation needed the input of the Senate.
Okiya explained that any bill touching on devolution or County Governments must be debated upon by Senators whose views must be considered by the National Assembly or mediated in order to reach an amicable resolution.
The seven petitioners, hence, asked the High Court to quash the offending sections, noting that if left unchecked, the Executive and Parliament may end up being rogue in legislation.
"Pending the hearing and determination of the application and/or the Petition, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an interim order prohibiting the respondents and interested parties or their agents howsoever acting from giving effect to the Finance Act, 2023," read part of the petition.
Okiya claimed that the Cabinet Secretary for Treasury Njuguna Ndung'u was expressly required by Articles 153(4)(a), and 93(2) and 94(4) of the Constitution to adhere to procedures for legislation and budget-making processes.
Technical Error in Introduction of the Bill
Okiya also agreed with Nominated MP John Mbadi who Friday, June 16, claimed that the introduction of the Finance Bill 2023 violated the provision of the Public Finance Management Act, 2012.
The petition observed that Finance Bill 2023 contravenes the amended PFM Act section 40 and the Standing Orders 244 (c) (4) that require the National Treasury Cabinet Secretary to table the proposed legislation after the budget highlights speech.
"Failure to submit a Bill to the said constitutional requirement on concurrence, which must precede the introduction of a Bill in a House in the legislative process under Article 110 (3) of the Constitution, is fatal and cannot be cured later in any way," the petition read in part.
