House work on Raila pay law stopped

What you need to know:

  • Treasury Cabinet Secretary Henry Rotich proposed to include a clause into a law on the retirement of state officers which would have paved the way for the pensions of Mr Odinga and former Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka.
  • According to a letter from the Treasury tabled by National Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Mutava Musyimi, the positions of Prime Minister and Vice-President were not recognised in the Constitution and could, therefore, not be paid for.
  • Mr Rotich also proposed that the law specify that the deputy president and speakers of the National Assembly and Senate would get their pensions through the same law.

Parliament on Wednesday stopped working on a law to give former Prime Minister Raila Odinga retirement benefits until conditions set by the National Treasury are met.

Treasury Cabinet Secretary Henry Rotich proposed to include a clause into a law on the retirement of state officers which would have paved the way for the pensions of Mr Odinga and former Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka.

According to a letter from the Treasury tabled by National Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Mutava Musyimi, the positions of Prime Minister and Vice-President were not recognised in the Constitution and could, therefore, not be paid for.

Mr Rotich also proposed that the law specify that the deputy president and speakers of the National Assembly and Senate would get their pensions through the same law.
Mr Rotich said a transitional clause should be inserted to provide for benefits for the former prime minister and vice-president, locking out other former vice-presidents.

“The intention appears to be to pay all retired persons since independence, which would be unsustainable in view of the large number,” said Mr Rotich.

He welcomed the limitation to those in office since January 15, 2008 as it would ensure only Mr Odinga and Mr Musyoka got the benefits.

In the Bill was a clause that the benefits would only be paid out “if such persons do not participate in elective politics.”

“We do not concur with the statement about the clause being unconstitutional or discriminatory. It is important that Treasury calls for prudence in the management of retirement benefit schemes in the public service,” said Mr Rotich.