A fierce constitutional showdown is brewing after Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei tabled a controversial motion seeking to slash retirement benefits for former President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta—a move now facing sharp legal criticism led by Rarieda MP Otiende Amolo.
In a strongly worded response, Amolo dismissed the motion as frivolous and constitutionally untenable, branding it “a waste of time” and “not worthy of discussion.” His remarks have quickly reframed the debate from a political contest to a fundamental question of constitutional law.
At the heart of Amolo’s argument is Article 151(3) of the Constitution, which he says explicitly shields former presidents from any adverse alteration of their benefits during their lifetime.
According to the legislator, the provision was deliberately inserted to protect the dignity and independence of the presidency, ensuring that retirement packages cannot be weaponized for political ends.
“Benefits due to any former President cannot be altered to their disadvantage during their lifetime,” Amolo asserted, warning that any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional from the outset.
Cherargei’s motion seeks to review and potentially withdraw state-funded perks enjoyed by Kenyatta, citing concerns over his continued involvement in active politics. But Amolo argues that such reasoning collapses under constitutional scrutiny.
Legal experts broadly align with this position, noting that while Parliament can debate policy, it cannot override explicit constitutional protections without a formal amendment—an arduous process requiring broad national consensus.
By framing the motion as “idle,” Amolo suggests it is less about enforceable law and more about political signalling, with little chance of surviving judicial challenge.
Amolo further emphasized that the protections in question are not designed to benefit individuals, but to safeguard the institution of the presidency itself.
Allowing Parliament to arbitrarily revise a former president’s benefits, he argues, would set a dangerous precedent—opening the door to politically motivated retaliation against past leaders.
Despite the legal hurdles, the motion has sparked intense public and political debate, with supporters framing it as a question of accountability, while critics see it as a direct affront to constitutional order.
As the Senate weighs its next move, Amolo’s intervention has injected a sobering legal perspective into an otherwise politically charged proposal—raising a critical question: can political will override constitutional safeguards?
For now, the answer, at least in the eyes of one of Kenya’s foremost constitutional lawyers, appears to be a firm no.
