NAIROBI, Kenya – The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has taken a firm stand against the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that upheld the controversial Finance Act, 2023, asserting that the legislative process failed to meet the spirit of public participation mandated by the Constitution.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo expressed strong disappointment with the Court’s decision, arguing that the speed and nature of the public participation process did not adequately consider Kenyans’ legitimate expectations.
“The expeditiousness of public participation, a key legislative process, cannot override the broader public interest and expectation,” she said.
Odhiambo pointed to widespread concerns over the perceived dilution of public input in legislative matters, a sentiment that has only grown amid the ongoing debate on the Finance Act’s sweeping economic reforms.
She argued that the decision appeared to offer Parliament unchecked leeway, potentially opening the door to inadequate public engagement under the guise of legislative expediency.
“Over and above upholding the provisions of the Finance Act 2023 as constitutional, the Court went to great lengths to argue why, in its view, the concerns regarding public participation lacked substance,” she noted.
Despite her disapproval, Odhiambo acknowledged the Supreme Court’s call for Parliament to establish a formal framework for public participation, a move she believes is overdue.
“We welcome the Court’s recommendation for a statute to guide public participation. If the Court is called upon in the future, we hope it will provide more purposeful guidance on the framework, scope, and standards for public engagement,” she said.
This stance comes in light of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, which reversed an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal that had nullified the Finance Act on grounds of insufficient public participation.
The Court of Appeal had declared the Act unconstitutional, contending that Parliament had failed to secure adequate input from the public—a core constitutional requirement.
However, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench rejected this conclusion, asserting that public participation was conducted to a “satisfactory” degree, given the unique circumstances surrounding the enactment of a Finance Act.
The judges emphasized the need for a structured legal framework to manage public engagement effectively, directing Parliament to make all bill versions accessible to the public at each legislative stage.
Odhiambo expressed hope that future rulings might tighten the parameters around public participation, noting that the current legal gap allows for what she termed “contemptuous” disregard for the public’s voice in legislative affairs.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo expressed strong disappointment with the Court’s decision, arguing that the speed and nature of the public participation process did not adequately consider Kenyans’ legitimate expectations.
“The expeditiousness of public participation, a key legislative process, cannot override the broader public interest and expectation,” she said.
Odhiambo pointed to widespread concerns over the perceived dilution of public input in legislative matters, a sentiment that has only grown amid the ongoing debate on the Finance Act’s sweeping economic reforms.
She argued that the decision appeared to offer Parliament unchecked leeway, potentially opening the door to inadequate public engagement under the guise of legislative expediency.
“Over and above upholding the provisions of the Finance Act 2023 as constitutional, the Court went to great lengths to argue why, in its view, the concerns regarding public participation lacked substance,” she noted.
Despite her disapproval, Odhiambo acknowledged the Supreme Court’s call for Parliament to establish a formal framework for public participation, a move she believes is overdue.
“We welcome the Court’s recommendation for a statute to guide public participation. If the Court is called upon in the future, we hope it will provide more purposeful guidance on the framework, scope, and standards for public engagement,” she said.
This stance comes in light of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, which reversed an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal that had nullified the Finance Act on grounds of insufficient public participation.
The Court of Appeal had declared the Act unconstitutional, contending that Parliament had failed to secure adequate input from the public—a core constitutional requirement.
However, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench rejected this conclusion, asserting that public participation was conducted to a “satisfactory” degree, given the unique circumstances surrounding the enactment of a Finance Act.
The judges emphasized the need for a structured legal framework to manage public engagement effectively, directing Parliament to make all bill versions accessible to the public at each legislative stage.
Odhiambo expressed hope that future rulings might tighten the parameters around public participation, noting that the current legal gap allows for what she termed “contemptuous” disregard for the public’s voice in legislative affairs.
