Githunguri Member of Parliament Gathoni Wamuchomba has criticised the Housing Levy, applauding the recent High Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional and lacking in clarity.
“I think that the Housing Levy is one of the most contentious issues that we have right now within the 2023 Finance Act,” Wamuchomba said.
The UDA-allied legislator also questioned the government’s failure to provide a “rational explanation” for imposing the levy solely on formal sector workers.
“The legal framework of the Housing Levy is still not clear to me. There are schemes of taking over prime land and handing that land to other players. That is unconstitutional, unprocedural and irregular, and some of us will pay for what we are doing in the future” she noted.
Speaking on Spice FM on Thursday, Wamuchomba further challenged President William Ruto’s argument that higher taxes are a necessary to stabilize the government.
“What the government is economical suicide. You cannot overtax the micro-producer who is at the baseline of the pyramid. Widening of the tax base should be carefully done step by step not at once,” she said.
In addition, she commended Kiambu Governor Kimani Wamatangi’s fight against illegal land acquisition.
“For Governor Wamatangi to say that he would not hand over his piece of land until he got it clear, I think he is doing what he is supposed to be doing. But unfortunately this is Kenya; you say No to such a request, you suffer the consequences,” stated Wamuchomba.
On Tuesday, November 27, Kenya’s High Court ruled that the Housing Levy imposed as part of the Finance Act 2023 was unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel determined that the levy violated Article 10, 2(a) of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the government had not provided a rational explanation for why the housing levy was only imposed on workers in the formal sector.
“We find that the introduction of the housing levy amendment to section 84 lacks a comprehensive legal framework in violation of Article 10 of the constitution, that levy against persons in formal employment without justification is discriminatory and irrational,” the judges noted in a ruling read by Justice David Majanja.
