Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

A judge has certified as urgent a suit challenging President William Ruto’s directive to have all government services paid for through one digital payment platform.

Justice Hedwig Ong’undi of the Milimani High Court certified the case by two petitioners; Bernard Odero Okello and Fredrick Ogola terming the order unconstitutional.

She has directed the petitioners to serve the Attorney General, Treasury and ICT ministry. The Attorney General’s office, Treasury and ministry of ICT ought to respond by August 29. The matter will then be mentioned on September 4 for compliance.

In their application, Okello and Ogola claim that President Ruto’s unilateral and arbitrary direction on the closure of all government digital payments to allow the onboarding of all government services both at the national and county level into one digital payment platform is contrary to the Public Finance Management Act. Ogola claims there is no framework for managing the proposed single digital payment platform and there has not been any public participation in formulating the single digital payment platform.

“The centralisation of all National and County government payment into a single one is contrary to the spirit of devolution as it does not promote the distinctiveness of national and county level governments,” he claims in court documents.

Ogola states that besides the illegalities in the matter, it is concerned that the President is the supplier of the platform where these payments will be taking place hence its for personal benefits just like other platforms such as Hustler Fund.

Ogola wants the court to declare that the directive to on-board government services to a single Digital Payment Platform of Paybill Number 222222 on eCitizen.go.ke as conveyed in Gazette Vol. CXXIV-No. 287 Gazette Notice No. 16008 and published on December 30, 2022, in the absence of public participation is in violation of Articles 201(a) as read together with Articles 10(1), 2(a) and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional.