In a case I filed alongside BERNARD MUCHIRI MUCHERE and NAOMI NYAKERARIO MISATI challenging the constitutionality of privatising the Kenya Pipeline Company @kenyapipeline the High Court has explicitly preserved one substantive question for determination on merit:
"Whether the Privatisation of KPC, being primarily driven by IMF loan conditionalities and not an independent sovereign determination of public interest, violates the sovereignty of the people (Article 1), national values of patriotism (Article 10) and constitutes an unlawful abduction of state authority to an external entity."
The Court also directed the Government to produce, within 21 days, important documents relating to the privatisation. The Court has effectively invited the Petitioners to prove, through documentary evidence, that the privatisation was not a sovereign policy choice but a coerced compliance with IMF conditionalities, hence, a violation of Article 2(6) of the Constitution.
https://t.co/gIabTvB4cU
🚨IMPORTANT : This could be one of the most important anti-corruption proposals Kenya has seen in years.
Senator Okiya Omtatah has proposed giving senators real-time access to Treasury and county payments made to suppliers.
Think about that for a moment.
Instead of discovering corruption months or years later through Auditor-General reports, suspicious payments could be spotted as they happen.
Senators would also be able to verify whether projects being claimed actually received funding and whether taxpayers' money is reaching the ground.
I've said this for years: IFMIS payment data should be public.
Corruption thrives in darkness. Transparency forces accountability.
If you're genuinely tired of endless scandals, then this is the kind of reform that deserves support, not because of politics, but because it protects taxpayers' money.
Anyone opposing greater transparency should be prepared to explain why.
Senator Maanzo and Onyancha have supported.
You will never see this happening in Singapore, Canada, US, Belgium, even Russia. These countries invest in industries, and create conducive business environment.
This is NOT EMPOWERMENT. This is simply the WEAPONIZATION of POVERTY.
We're importing used vehicles, approving fuel with higher sulphur content, then threatening motorists with hefty fines if their emissions are too high.
The policy objectives don't seem to align. It raises valid questions about whether this is about cleaner air or collecting more money.
The corruption you saw happen to Egypt is how things are rigged using computers and software in backrooms against the powerless across the world by global institutions comparable to FIFA. Global exchange rates, credit ratings, interest rates, travel rules, visas, courts etc. ⚖️
Aliko Dangote says his planned 700,000-barrel-per-day oil refinery will be built in Kenya instead of Tanzania.
The project is estimated to cost $15–17 billion (about Sh2.2 trillion) and will supply refined fuel to Kenya and other East African countries.
With all the stealing/looting currently going on by this regime, who in their right mind believes SACCOS Funds, saved by Members will not be stolen by this regime using the Infrastructure Fund as the conduit after Parliament locked out
Auditor General and Controller of Budget?
The question is not whether Kenya may belong to the IMF or the World Bank. The question is whether the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, a statute enacted at independence in 1963 may continue, after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, to authorise treaty implementation, borrowing, public expenditure, tax exemptions, and institutional immunities in a manner that weakens judicial control of public power, limits access to justice and information, and displaces the constitutional architecture of accountable public finance.
While the Act may have served a lawful purpose at the time of its enactment in 1963, its continued operation must now be assessed against the normative framework of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
To the extent that its purpose or effect is inconsistent with the Constitution, the provisions must be read down, adapted, or declared invalid.
Accordingly, even if the Act was constitutionally unobjectionable at independence, its continued effect in the post 2010 constitutional order cannot be sustained where it undermines or derogates from constitutional requirements.