A fresh political storm sparked by Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei over retired President Uhuru Kenyatta’s retirement benefits is increasingly being dismissed as a dead cat strategy aimed at diverting public attention from more pressing national issues.

On May 4, 2026, Cherargei tabled a motion in the Senate seeking to strip Uhuru of his retirement benefits, accusing the former Head of State of violating the Retired Presidential Benefits Act by engaging in active politics.

The move followed Uhuru’s public endorsement of Jubilee Deputy party leader Fred Matiang’i during a Labour Day event where he addressed supporters through a phone call.

But constitutional experts, lawmakers and senior counsels argue that the motion has no legal foundation and stands little chance of succeeding because retirement benefits for former presidents are protected under the Constitution.

Political observers say the motion is a classic dead cat strategy, a political communication tactic where controversial issues are introduced to dominate headlines and distract the public from difficult conversations surrounding governance, the economy and political realignments ahead of the 2027 General Election.

Under Article 151(3) of the Constitution, the retirement benefits and privileges of a former president “shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their lifetime.” The Constitution also guarantees every citizen political rights under Article 38, including participation in political activities and campaigning for causes or parties of their choice.

Former National Assembly Speaker and former Attorney General Justin Muturi argued that Cherargei’s proposal contradicts the Constitution and misunderstands the hierarchy of laws.

“That law is misplaced. You can not limit the rights of individuals through an act of parliament, yet they are guaranteed in the Constitution. I thought Cherarkey is a lawyer who ought to understand this simple logic,” Muturi says.

Muturi further pointed out that Parliament cannot amend constitutional protections through ordinary legislation or Senate motions.

According to him, any attempt to withdraw a former president’s constitutional privileges would require a national referendum.

Leaders defend Uhuru

Article 38 (1) provides: “Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right-(a) to form, or participate in forming, a political party; (b) to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; or (c) to campaign for a political party or cause.”

On the other hand, Article 151 (3) of the Constitution states, “The retirement benefits payable to a former president and a former deputy president, the facilities available to and the privileges enjoyed by them, shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their lifetime.”

Rarieda MP and Senior Counsel Otiende Amollo also dismissed the motion as legally hollow and politically theatrical.

“Some debates are really a waste of time. This purported motion by Senator Cherargei is idle and not worthy of discussion. The benefits due to any former president cannot be altered to their disadvantage during their lifetime. We specifically inserted this in the Constitution (Article 151(3),” Amollo stated.

The same sentiments were echoed by Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna, who questioned the Senate’s jurisdiction over such a matter.

“There is no way Uhuru Kenyatta’s retirement benefits can be scrapped because they are entrenched in the Constitution. You cannot scrap something that is entrenched in the Constitution through a Senate motion; it can only be done through a referendum. Cherargei’s motion is going nowhere,” Sifuna said.

A political busybody?

The debate has also exposed widening political tensions triggered by Uhuru’s re-emergence into active political conversations after months of relative silence. His endorsement of Matiang’i has rattled sections of the political establishment amid signs of early succession politics ahead of 2027.

Some Kenya Kwanza-allied leaders view Uhuru’s renewed political engagement as an attempt to shape the opposition’s future direction.

However, some pro-government honchos insist that retired presidents retain full political rights despite receiving state benefits.

Belgut MP Nelson Koech cautioned against weaponising constitutional benefits for political retaliation.

“Wachana na hii mambo kidogo kidogo mambo ambayo haisaidii. Uhuru Kenyatta, if we were to deal with him, why would you want to?Sasa mambo ya perks ya mtu ambayo iko kwa katiba unasemaje itatolewa?” he quipped.

Moreover, Suba South MP Caroli Omondi equally termed the motion unconstitutional and an attempt to silence dissenting political voices.

“Senator Cherargei’s motion seeking to strip Uhuru Kenyatta of his perks and benefits is misplaced and unconstitutional. It is a futile attempt to gag the rights and freedoms of a retired president to participate in politics,” Omondi said.

Meanwhile, the courts have previously ruled against similar attempts to deny state officers retirement benefits on political grounds. In 2015, the High Court struck down provisions of the Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act that sought to deny benefits to retired leaders participating in active politics.

The law had targeted the late former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and former Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka after the 2013 elections.

“A similar provision introduced then by the Leader of Majority Aden Duale to deny Tinga and Kalonzo their benefits when I was the Speaker was overturned by the High Court. I warned back then that it was bad law,” Muturi says.

With constitutional protections firmly in place and legal precedent already established, Cherargei’s motion appears unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny even if it proceeds through Parliament.

Instead, critics argue the motion serves a political purpose, energising partisan supporters, provoking public debate and shifting national attention toward Uhuru’s political activities rather than substantive policy discussions.

For now, Uhuru and his Jubilee allies maintain that the retired president has every constitutional right to engage in politics, just like retired heads of state in many democratic nations across the world.