A case has been filed at the Milimani Law Courts seeking to halt any parliamentary process aimed at reviewing or altering the retirement benefits of a former President, in a fresh constitutional challenge targeting provisions of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act.
The petitioner, Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, is seeking conservatory orders to suspend the operation of Sections 4 and 6 of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act pending the hearing and determination of the case.
The application, supported by an affidavit sworn by lawyer Shadrack Wambui, argues that the impugned sections are in direct conflict with Article 151(3) of the Constitution, which provides that the retirement benefits of a former President “shall not be varied to the disadvantage” of the holder during their lifetime.
The petitioner contends that a motion dated May 4, 2026, currently before the Senate and initiated by Nandi Senator Cherargei, seeks to review, audit, and potentially alter the benefits of a former Head of State, an action they argue is unconstitutional.
According to court documents, the petitioner wants the court to certify the application as urgent and issue interim orders stopping any debate, tabling, or consideration of the Senate motion, as well as suspending the implementation of the contested provisions of the law.
The application further argues that allowing Parliament to proceed would effectively grant it adjudicative powers reserved for the Judiciary, as it would be determining alleged misconduct and imposing punitive consequences in the form of withdrawal of benefits.
“The impugned statutory framework places constitutionally protected rights at the mercy of a political process,” the petitioner argues, warning that the continued invocation of the provisions risks normalising the erosion of vested constitutional guarantees.
Sheria Mtaani maintains that the court has both the authority and obligation to intervene before any alleged constitutional violation crystallises, emphasising the need to preserve the status quo.
They further argue that failure to grant the conservatory orders could result in irreversible harm, including the undermining of constitutional safeguards designed to shield the presidency from post-tenure political retaliation.
The orders sought, the petitioner says, are narrowly tailored and do not impede Parliament’s broader legislative mandate, but rather seek to temporarily suspend reliance on provisions whose constitutionality is under question.
