In a significant development regarding the petition against the Finance Act 2023, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi claimed that a letter cited by Busia senator and activist, Okiya Omtatah had already been withdrawn.
Kingi argued that he wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly withdrawing a letter dated June 15, warning that the Finance Act 2023 would affect the county governments and needed to be discussed by both houses.
According to court documents seen on Sunday, July 2, Kingi maintained that the Act does not affect the county governments as alleged and was advised to withdraw the letter illegally obtained and filed as evidence to mislead the court.
He thus argued that the court erred in issuing conservatory orders against the Finance Bill 2023, thus granting Omtatah's prayers on barring President William Ruto from enforcing tax hikes.
“I do acknowledge that you indeed wrote to me with regard to the consideration of the Finance Bill 2023 vide your letter dated May 2, 2023. My letter dated June 15, 2023, was therefore sent in error, and I hereby withdraw it and repudiate its contents in its entirety.
“The position, therefore, remains as set out in my letter dated May 3, 2023, in which I was in agreement that pursuant to the provisions of Articles 95(4)(c), 114,109(3), 209(1) and 221(1) of the Constitution, the Finance Bill(National Assembly Bills No.14 of 2023) is a Bill considered only by the National Assembly, does not concern county governments and does not affect the operations of the Senate,” noted the submission in part.
Omtatah, in his petition, had argued that the National Assembly Speaker, Moses Wetangula, did not consult his Senate counterpart before allowing the Finance Bill 2023 to be read and voted for.
He lamented that The National Assembly violated Article 110(3) of the Constitution by introducing the Finance Bill 2023 to the plenary without the Senate's input.
However, in response to Kingi's application, Omtatah told Kenyans.co.ke that the withdrawal was an afterthought by the Speaker and did not affect the ruling rendered by the court.
“They cannot go back in history and correct mistakes. They don't have the capacity for time travel. The fact remains that the Finance Bill did not go for concurrence. Nothing is based on the letter, so nothing will change.
“The letter was just a way of confirming that it had happened. Where is the letter showing that there was concurrence? Whether he withdraws or not adds to nothing, but the letter is valid,” Omtatah argued.
According to the activist, the speaker did not have the authority to make statements on his own, and he ought to have produced a report showing minutes of the meeting with the council to ascertain that the decision was not his own.
“It is not about the whims of the Speaker. It is about an interrogation over a Bill, and even the speaker can't do that without a committee. That is why we have the speakers’ panel.
“So he has no capacity to decide alone, but most importantly the decision is not arbitrary. The decision is structured and so let him produce the minutes of a report over the examination of the various process to demonstrate that the house greed that the bill did not concern counties,” he added.
On Friday, June 30, High Court Judge Mugure Thande issued conservatory orders suspending the implementation of the Finance Act 2023.
