Executive defiance: Halt ‘illegal’ Sh50 e-Citizen convenience, AG tell Treasury
Chief legal government advisor Attorney General Dorcas Oduor has now advised the Executive arm of the government to stop defying court orders and implement High Court directive suspending the Sh50 convenience fee charged on e-Citizen transactions.
The AG advised Treasury and Economic Planning Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi to immediately seize charging the transaction fee.
The advisory comes in the wake of a ruling by the Court of Appeal last week, which rejected an application by the government seeking to suspend the enforcement of Justice Chacha Mwita’s April 1, 2025, judgment.
With the stay bid dismissed, the High Court orders remain operational as the substantive appeal continues.
In a response filed in court, the AG addressed accusations of contempt brought by Dr Benjamin Magare Gikenyi, who wants several Cabinet Secretaries and senior government officials punished for allegedly ignoring Justice Mwita’s directive barring the levy.
Magare claimed that despite the judgment, Kenyans continued to be charged the fee across various government services, a move he argued constituted willful defiance and an erosion of judicial authority.
The AG, however, told the court that the government had already embarked on the appeal process and insisted that state officers were not acting in disregard of the law. She stated that the officials were duty-bound to follow court orders even as they pursued legal avenues to challenge them.
According to the advisory, the ministries involved have been working to adjust the e-Citizen system to conform to the judgment.
Oduor explained that some of the required actions such as reallocating budget votes and reconfiguring the system’s internal processes involve statutory procedures that cannot be completed instantly.
She argued that the steps taken so far showed commitment to the rule of law and that the officials named in the contempt application had demonstrated good faith by initiating compliance measures.
The matter now awaits further directions as the court assesses both the allegations of non-compliance and the government’s explanation of ongoing administrative adjustments.
