Former President Uhuru Kenyatta is facing renewed scrutiny over his post-retirement conduct following a Senate motion seeking to review his retirement benefits.
The proposal raises questions about whether retired Heads of State should remain politically neutral in line with the law governing their privileges.
“This House recommends the revocation, variation, or reallocation of budgetary provisions relating to the benefits of the retired President, in line with the findings of the audit and subject to approval in accordance with the law,” the motion read.
The motion comes after Uhuru’s public declaration in support of the former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i as a preferred leader ahead of the 2027 General Election.
Legal Framework Governing Presidential Retirement Benefits
According to Nandi Senator Samson Cherarkey, Presidential Retirement Benefits Act clearly outlines both the privileges and limitations attached to former Heads of State.
Also Read: Uhuru Refuses to Retire, Reveals His 2027 Preferred Candidates
While the law guarantees pensions, security, staff, and other state-funded benefits, it also requires retired Presidents to maintain political neutrality.
Cherarkey points to Section 6 of the Act, which restricts engagement in active political party activities, and Section 4, which empowers Parliament to withdraw or reduce benefits if a former President is found to have violated these provisions.
“Section 4 of the Act empowers the parliament, by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of its Members, to deny or reduce such benefits where a retired President engages in conduct inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; Cognizant That, section 6 of the Act restricts a retired President from active engagement in political party activities beyond the prescribed period and envisages a neutral, consultative, and advisory role for the benefit of the nation,” read part of the motion
According to the senator, these clauses are central to preserving the dignity of the office while ensuring accountability in the use of public resources.
Allegations of Political Activity by Uhuru Kenyatta
In his motion, Cherarkey claims that Uhuru has engaged in activities that amount to partisan politics.
He cites instances where the former President has reportedly attended and addressed political rallies aligned with specific formations.
The senator further points to public statements attributed to Uhuru that have been interpreted as endorsing or opposing political actors, as well as participation in consultative meetings linked to ongoing political contests.
He argues that such actions, if confirmed, are inconsistent with the expectation that retired Presidents remain non-partisan and serve as neutral national figures.
Audit Proposal on Uhuru Kenyatta’s Benefits
Beyond the allegations of political involvement, Cherarkey is also pushing for a financial review of all state resources allocated to Kenyatta since his retirement.
The motion proposes that the Office of the Auditor-General, in collaboration with relevant state agencies, conduct an audit and submit findings to the Senate within 60 days.
The senator argues that since these benefits are funded by taxpayers, there must be strict oversight to ensure they are not enjoyed in violation of the law.
He further suggests that any funds found to have been improperly allocated or used should be recovered and redirected to public welfare programmes.
Also Read: Uhuru Risks Losing Presidential Retirement Benefits as Ruto Allies Issue Warnings
Parliament’s Oversight Role in Cherarkey’s Motion
Cherarkey insists that Parliament has a duty to act where there are credible concerns about misuse or abuse of publicly funded benefits.
He argues that failure to enforce the law would undermine transparency, accountability, and prudent management of public resources.
The motion now calls on lawmakers to consider withdrawing or reducing the former President’s benefits and to review budgetary allocations tied to his retirement package based on the outcome of the proposed audit.
It also recommends that any recovered funds be reallocated to serve the interests of the public.
