A legal and political debate has emerged in Parliament following a motion by Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei seeking a review of the retirement benefits of former President Uhuru Kenyatta, with veteran lawyer Paul Muite warning that the proposal may be unconstitutional.
Cherargei’s motion, tabled in the Senate, calls for a review and possible withdrawal or reallocation of benefits currently enjoyed by the former Head of State.
He argues that Kenyatta’s continued participation in political affairs raises questions about the expectations placed on retired presidents, who are largely expected to maintain neutrality under the retirement benefits framework.
The motion also proposes a full audit by the Auditor-General into all state resources allocated to Kenyatta since leaving office. The report would then be submitted to Parliament within 60 days.
Cherargei further suggests that any funds recovered be redirected to public welfare programmes.
The benefits in question include monthly pension, housing and entertainment allowances, security, medical cover, official vehicles, staff, office support, and diplomatic privileges.
However, the proposal has now attracted sharp legal criticism from lawyer Paul Muite, who argues that the Constitution clearly protects former Presidents from any disadvantageous changes to their retirement packages.
He cited Article 151(3) of the Constitution, which states:
“The retirement benefits payable to a former President and a former Deputy President, the facilities available to and the privileges enjoyed by them, shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their lifetime.”
Muite argues that any attempt to reduce or withdraw those benefits would directly contradict the Constitution, regardless of the political arguments surrounding the motion.
He also referenced Article 2 of the Constitution on supremacy of the law, stating that all state organs, including Parliament, are bound by the Constitution and cannot enact or support any law that goes against it.
He noted:
“Any law that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of this Constitution is invalid.”
According to Muite, the retirement package for former Presidents is deliberately protected to preserve institutional stability and safeguard the dignity of individuals who have held the highest office in the country.
The motion has triggered debate within political circles, with supporters insisting it raises accountability questions, while critics say it risks violating clear constitutional provisions.