Judge clears 34 State agencies to join e-citizen platform

The High Court in Nairobi on Wednesday struck out a case filed challenging the on-boarding of 34 government agencies and parastatals to e-citizen.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye further lifted the orders he issued last year barring the 34 from shifting their services and payments to the platform after finding that the case filed human rights organisation Kituo cha Sheria and Hillary Mokaya was an abuse of court process.

The judge said that Kituo cha Sheria had failed to disclose that it had filed a similar case against the same parties before a different court.

“The core issues are the same, the petitioner is the same. A constitution is not a safe haven for relitigating matters before another court. The conservatory issued on December 15, 2024 and extended are hereby vacated,” ruled Justice Mwamuye.

He agreed with the Attorney General that the case could not stand as it amounted to seeking audience before two separate courts over the same dispute.

The agencies include Kenya Ports Authority, Kenya Power, and Independent Policing Oversight Authority .

In this case, Kituo cha Sheria and Mokaya questioned President William Ruto’s orders issued on November 28, 2024, arguing that the agencies and parastatals are independent and cannot be controlled by the Head of State.

Their lawyer, Mosongo Maosa, argued that they all have boards that enjoy autonomy and are bound to make decisions away from the influence of the President or other government officials.

The two also cited government-owned banks - Consolidated Bank of Kenya and Development Bank of Kenya - argued that the President’s directive is illegal as e-citizen is not a banking institution.

According to Maosa, the government payment portal is not licensed to take deposits from Kenyans or the banks’ customers.

He also stated that the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya and the Institute of Certified Secretaries are also affected, despite being affiliated with other professional bodies, such as the Law Society of Kenya .

Maosa asserted that Ruto’s directive would hamper services offered to Kenyans as some have no access to the internet or are knowledgeable enough to use a computer.

He claimed that 34 CEO’s who headed the institutions were at risk of losing their jobs if they did not obey.

“Members of the public who experience difficulties or are unable to access the services of the respondents offered on the internet, whether due to lack of necessary equipment and or infrastructure, good network connectivity, ability to afford and access internet, basic computer literacy and internet knowledge are or shall be prevented from accessing by themselves, services being offered by the 1st to 34th Interested Parties on the Government Payment Services,” said Maosa.

While supporting the case, the second petitioner (Mokaya) told the court that only a paltry 4.4 per cent of people living in rural areas have access to a desktop computer, laptop and tablet, while 19.3 per cent have access to the same.

In his affidavit, he said that the digital divide is experienced between the urban rich and poor, the rural and urban citizens, the IT literate and the IT illiterate who the online web portal or website content is also English-dominated and can only be understood by a minority elite.

“Despite ICTs becoming integral to life, not all population segments can access and use ICTs equally. Some segments of the population face more challenges in accessing or using these technologies than others,” said Mokaya.

According to him, the directive by the President is a violation of the law and an encroachment of the mandates given to independent bodies.

He said that CEO’s of the targeted agencies and parastatals were now at risk of being kicked out for failing to obey despite the illegal directive.

Kenya has a history of CEOs being fired arbitrarily by H.E. the President since the tenure of the first President. This pattern has continued through successive administrations, undermining the security of tenure and the principles of fair administrative action,” he said.