High Court to determine fate of housing levy
President William Ruto after he commissioned the construction of a Sh50million market at Watamu, Kilifi County on July 26, 2024.
What you need to know:
- Former Attorney-General Githu Muigai submitted on behalf of the Land and Housing CS that Parliament conducted public participation and came up with necessary legislative mechanisms, for the enactment of the law.
- Prof Muigai said the bill was subjected to public participation before it was enacted through direct participation by way of memoranda and submission to Parliament by members of the public and indirect participation through debate, amendments and proposals done by MPs.
The High Court will on Tuesday afternoon decide whether the Affordable Housing Act, the law anchoring President William Ruto’s pet project, is constitutional.
Six cases were filed challenging the law and the affordable housing levy that was imposed at a standard rate of 1.5 percent on the gross salary of an employee or the gross income of a person received or accrued.
A three-judge bench of Justices Olga Sewe, John Chigiti and Josephine Mong’are will rule this afternoon whether the Act was enacted constitutionally.
While defending the Affordable housing programme, the government submitted that the initiative is designed to meet the critical housing needs of Kenyans.
The Cabinet secretaries for Lands and Housing as well as Treasury argued that the act sought to fulfil the constitutional right of every Kenyan to adequate and accessible housing.
Former Attorney-General Githu Muigai submitted on behalf of the Land and Housing CS that Parliament conducted public participation and came up with necessary legislative mechanisms, for the enactment of the law.
Prof Muigai said the bill was subjected to public participation before it was enacted through direct participation by way of memoranda and submission to Parliament by members of the public and indirect participation through debate, amendments and proposals done by MPs.
On claims that the act was discriminatory against salaried employees, the government said section 4(2) of the act provides that the affordable housing levy is imposed at a standard rate of 1.5 percent on gross salary of an employee or the gross income of a person received or accrued.
Also Read: State House defends President Ruto's affordable housing initiative as project faces scrutiny
He said the levy was imposed to raise funds that will be used to enable all citizens to have a measure of equitable access to decent affordable housing.
“This means that the affordable housing levy extends beyond salaried employees to include persons who have other sources of income. This broadens the revenue base to include all persons, irrespective of their employment status,” Prof Muigai said.
The government said all Kenyans are entitled to apply for affordable housing units by the act and the absence of a guarantee that all contributors to the fund will personally benefit directly from their contributions does not violate the constitution.
Dr Magare Gikenyi, one of the petitioners, submitted that the Constitution does not talk of forced ownership of housing and debt recovery in case of failure to pay.
The Nakuru-based doctor said the Constitution does not envisage a situation where everyone, including those who already have accessible and adequate housing, are forced to pay to access housing.
“That the questioned action or omissions to the extent that the respondents (government) are forcing Kenyans to mandatorily contribute so that they can own a house as opposed to accessing a house is unconstitutional,” he said.
Dr Gikenyi further submitted that housing is a function of county government and the involvement of the national government is only in policy formulation.
