Court asks lawyer to shelve bid to halt Senate debate on Uhuru benefits

Lawyer Shadrack Wambu. [Courtesy]

The High Court in Kiambu has asked lawyer Shadrack Wambui to consider withdrawing an application for orders seeking to stop the Senate from debating a motion to review retired President Uhuru Kenyatta’s retirement benefits.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye said Wambui’s request was so that the case can go to the hearing phase of his petition.

While giving the suggestion, the judge said that the matter has not been on any order paper set for debate at the Senate and the court could not speculate on the same.

“We may spend 60 days doing an application that may not proceed,” he said.

This came after a lawyer for the Senate said that the procedure to debate motions is known and the matter in question was never listed in any order paper and the application cannot be based on speculation.

The matter will be back in court on Thursday, June 11, 2026, for mention and to get a decision from Wambui.

In the case, Wambui alongside Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui challenged provisions of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.

In his argument, Wambui stated that the provisions open the door to unconstitutional interference with entitlements that are protected under the Constitution.

In his affidavit, Wambui argues that the contested provisions contradict Article 151(3) of the Constitution, which safeguards a former President’s benefits from being altered to their disadvantage during their lifetime.

The petition is based on a motion sponsored by Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei on May 4, 2026, in which he sought to have Kenyatta’s benefits halted due to his alleged involvement in politics.

Wambui argued the move by Cherargei is unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately.

“The Constitution is explicit that a former President’s retirement benefits cannot be varied to their detriment. Any attempt to do so through a political process is unlawful,” said Wambui.

The lawyer argued in his petition that allowing senators to deliberate on the matter would blur separation of powers by assigning Parliament judicial roles.

“Permitting Parliament to interrogate alleged misconduct and impose consequences through withdrawal of benefits amounts to exercising powers reserved for the Judiciary.”

He further argued that constitutionally guaranteed rights could be exposed to political influence in the current legal framework.

“The impugned statutory framework places constitutionally protected rights at the mercy of a political process.”

He maintained that the application did not seek to hinder the legislative role of Parliament but a temporary suspension of provisions affected by the petition.