The High Court in Kiambu has declared unconstitutional provisions of the Presidential Retirement Benefits Act that allow the withholding or reduction of former presidents' retirement benefits and restrict their political participation.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye, in a judgment delivered virtually on Monday, September 21, declared Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act unconstitutional, null and void.

The court also declared Section 6 of the Act, which bars a retired president from holding office in a political party for more than six months after leaving office, unconstitutional and void in its entirety.

The judgment followed a petition filed by Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, challenging the provisions on grounds that they violated constitutional protections on presidential retirement benefits and political rights.

The court held that Article 151(3) of the Constitution protects the retirement benefits payable to former presidents and former deputy presidents from being varied to their disadvantage during their lifetime.

Justice Mwamuye ruled that Parliament cannot rely on the impugned provisions to withhold, reduce, withdraw or otherwise disadvantageously vary the retirement benefits protected under the Constitution.

The court further found that the mechanism for depriving former presidents of their benefits lacked adequate procedural safeguards and was inconsistent with Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution, as well as the principles of natural justice.

On political participation, the judge held that a former president remains a citizen with constitutional political rights after leaving office. The court found that the statutory restriction under Section 6 was incompatible with Article 38, which protects the right to participate in political activities.

However, the court clarified that Section 4(4), which concerns benefits payable to a surviving spouse, was not declared unconstitutional, subject to the qualifications under Section 7 of the Act.

The court declined to issue an order of certiorari, noting that the parliamentary motion challenged in the petition did not constitute a completed decision capable of being quashed. It instead issued orders of prohibition barring the enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions.

The court directed that each party bear its own costs, and the matter was closed.