DAP-K Party leader Eugene Wamalwa has demanded that President William Ruto refund the money deducted from Kenyans for the affordable housing program.
His sentiments come in light of the Court of Appeal declaring the Housing Levy unconstitutional and subsequently halting it.
Speaking on Saturday, January 27, Wamalwa said Ruto and his Kenya Kwanza Government illegally deducted funds from over 3 million Kenyans calling for an immediate refund.
“Tunamwambia ile pesa ulichukua, kinyume na sheria, tunataka izo pesa zirudishiwe wakenya mara moja. We are demanding that William Ruto and his Kenya Kwanza Government illegally deducted money from over 3 million Kenyans must not only cease deducting but must return every Kenyan’s money,” Wamalwa declared.
Wamalwa went further to call on Ruto to respect court orders related to the privatization of state-owned firms.
He highlighted the court’s directives to suspend privatization activities and insisted that Ruto must comply until the matters are heard in court.
“Tunasema pia privatization tulipata orders. Tulienda court an ikasema wasitishe mambo ya privatization. Iwe ni KICC Nairobi, iwe ni Kenya Seed kule kitale. We want to see Ruto stopping privatization adi mambo yaliyo kotini kusikizwa. Pia deployment ya polisi Haiti is unconstitutional na huku Kenya hatuna usalama wa kutosha. Heshimu mahakama, heshimu sheria,” he added.
He also expressed concern about the unconstitutional deployment of police forces in Haiti noting that Kenya doesn’t have enough security itself.
Wamalwa urged Ruto to respect court orders and uphold the rule of law.
Court halts Housing Levy
On January 26, the Court of Appeal declined to suspend the High Court decision that declared some sections of the Finance Act, 2023, including the Housing Levy, unconstitutional.
The judges insisted on an expedited hearing of the appeals to resolve the issues definitively.
Consequently, Kenyans are no longer required to contribute 1.5% of their salary towards the housing levy until the appeal is thoroughly addressed.
The judges emphasized that the High Court had found the levy lacked a legal foundation and targeted specific citizens.
They argued that public interest warranted awaiting the appeal’s determination, as granting a stay at this stage might lead to irreversible decisions if the appellate court upholds the initial ruling.
The judges dismissed the state’s applications for a stay, asserting that none of them satisfied the necessary conditions.
