A new legal battle has been filed at the Milimani Law Courts seeking to stop any attempt by Parliament to review or change the retirement benefits of a former President. The case introduces a fresh constitutional challenge that questions parts of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act, raising concerns about whether some provisions go against the Constitution.
The petition has been filed by Sheria Mtaani together with lawyer Shadrack Wambui, who is also the one who swore the supporting affidavit. They are asking the court to issue conservatory orders to suspend Sections 4 and 6 of the Act until the matter is fully heard and decided. According to them, these sections may allow actions that are not permitted under the Constitution.
In their argument, the petitioners point to Article 151(3) of the Constitution, which clearly states that the retirement benefits of a former President should not be changed in a way that disadvantages them during their lifetime. They believe the current legal framework creates room for such changes, which they say is a direct violation of that constitutional protection.
The case is also linked to a motion dated May 4, 2026, that is currently before the Senate. The motion was initiated by Samson Cherargei and seeks to review and audit the benefits given to a former Head of State. The petitioners argue that this process could lead to the alteration or withdrawal of those benefits, something they strongly believe is unconstitutional.
Court documents show that the petitioners want the application to be treated as urgent. They are asking the court to stop any debate, tabling, or discussion of the Senate motion until the case is determined.
They also want the court to suspend the use of the contested sections of the law during this period.
Another key concern raised in the application is the role of Parliament. The petitioners argue that allowing Parliament to proceed with the motion would mean giving it powers that belong to the Judiciary.
They say that by reviewing conduct and possibly imposing consequences like withdrawal of benefits, Parliament would be acting like a court.
They further warn that such actions could weaken constitutional protections. According to them, if these provisions are allowed to stand, they could set a dangerous precedent where political processes are used to interfere with rights that are already guaranteed by the Constitution.
Sheria Mtaani insists that the court has a duty to step in early before any possible violation takes place. They stress the importance of maintaining the current situation to avoid harm that cannot be reversed later.
The petition also argues that failing to grant the orders could open the door to political retaliation against former Presidents after they leave office. It says constitutional safeguards were designed to prevent exactly that kind of situation.
The petitioners maintain that their request does not interfere with Parliament’s general role of making laws.
Instead, they say it only seeks to pause the use of specific legal provisions whose constitutionality is being questioned, until the court gives clear direction on the matter.
