Omtatah asks court to summon Wetang’ula over Finance Act

By , July 13, 2023

Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah now seeks to have Speaker of National Assembly Moses Wetang’ula summoned to court over his affidavit filed in the case challenging the legality of the Finance Act.

Omtatah, along with six co-petitioners, has submitted an application requesting Wetang’ula’s appearance in court for cross-examination regarding the contents of his replying affidavit filed on June 30, 2023, concerning the ongoing dispute over the new taxation law.

Contents of affidavit

According to Omtatah, Wetang’ula’s affidavit contains unfounded allegations and falsehoods.

“On the basis of the foregoing, the petitioners have grounds to believe that there are mala fides, inauthenticity of the facts deponed, concealment of material facts and bad motives, among other grounds, in the replying Affidavit deponed by the Wetang’ula,” reads the court papers.

The Senator argues that cross-examination of the evidence provided by Wetang’ula is absolutely necessary for the proper decision of the petition challenging the legality of the new taxation law introduced by the Kenya Kwanza administration in a bid to collect an additional 211 billion.

Omtatah’s new request to the court comes days after he sought a summon to secure the attendance of Senate speaker Amason Kingi over a letter he wrote to Wetang’ula comprising the finance bill for presentation to the senate for concurrency.

Omtatah and his six co-petitioners want to cross-examine the speaker of the Senate in order “to expose the errors, falsehoods, contradictions and improbabilities detailed in his affidavit filed in court on July 1, 2023.”

Presence of both speakers

The petitioners are requesting the presence of both speakers in court to address the alleged discrepancies between them. They believe that there was a significant violation of the constitution and the law during the approval of the Finance Act, of 2023.

By summoning the two speakers, the petitioners aim to obtain clarification and transparency regarding the events that occurred, seeking to resolve any potential conflicts or inconsistencies.

Kingi in court papers, has stated that a letter cited by Omtatah in the petition lodged in court has already been withdrawn.

In his affidavit, the Senate Speaker states that he wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly Wetang’ula withdrawing a letter dated June 15 this year warning that the Finance bill would affect the county governments and needed to be discussed by both houses.

Further, Kingi claims that he consulted with Wetang’ula and they resolved that the Bill does not concern county governments and is therefore considered only in the National Assembly in accordance with the constitution.

Kingi says that the Act does not affect the county governments as alleged and was advised to withdraw the letter illegally obtained and filed as evidence to mislead the court.

“I received a letter dated May 2, 2023, from the Speaker of the National Assembly communicating the publication and consideration of the Finance Bill, 2023 in which the Speaker of the National Assembly communicated that the bill does not concern county government and sought that we jointly resolve the question whether the finance bill, 2023 is a bill concerning county government, ” Kingi states in his affidavit.

“I responded to the speaker of the National Assembly via a letter dated May 3, 2023, in which l concurred with my counterpart that the Bill does not concern counties,” he adds.

Court erred

He thus argued that the court erred in issuing conservatory orders against the Finance Bill 2023, thus granting Omtatah’s prayers on barring Ruto from enforcing tax hikes.

“I do acknowledge that the speaker of the national assembly indeed wrote to me with regards to the consideration of the Finance Bill 2023 vide your letter dated May 2, 2023. My letter dated June 15, 2023, was therefore sent in error, and I hereby withdraw it and repudiate its contents in its entirety.”

“The position, therefore, remains as set out in my letter dated May 3, 2023, in which I was in agreement that pursuant to the provisions of Articles 95(4)(c), 114,109(3), 209(1) and 221(1) of the Constitution, the Finance Bill (National Assembly Bills No.14 of 2023) is a Bill considered only by the National Assembly, does not concern county governments and does not affect the operations of the Senate,” noted the submission in part.

In their affidavits, the two speakers accuse the petitioners in the case who include Omtatah and 6 others of obtaining the letter between them improperly and producing it in court.

But Omtatah and his co-petitioners argued that the letter raises a question as to whether it is secretive and solely at the discretion of the two Speakers and at what point it is considered that the two Houses have concurred.

“Among the evidence the petitioners presented was a legally very sound-letter from the Speaker of the Senate, expressing the Senate’s and his concern that the Bill had not undergone the mandatory concurrence of the two Speakers of Parliament as required by Article 110(3) of the Constitution,” read court documents.

Omtatah and his co-petitioners also argue that the repudiated letter references a report from the Senate Departmental Committee on Delegated Legislation, which confirmed that the Finance Bill 2023 included matters concerning counties.

Author Profile

Related article

January 11, 2025: Top news events to look out for today

Read more

Haiti Consulate-General nominee Gabow refutes reports of officers resigning

Read more

‘Hakuna penye Ruto anaenda’ – MP Oscar Sudi tells off president’s critics

Read more