Githu wants extension of MCAs pay beyond polls revoked

Attorney General Githu Muigai. file photo | nmg

What you need to know:

  • The ruling said the ward representatives’ term in office was to end on March 3, 2018, paving the way for taxpayers to fork out Sh3.3 billion for MCAs’ pay.
  • The IEBC in court papers said the High Court judgment creates illegitimate county assemblies.
  • Currently, there are 2,526 MCAs each earning a basic monthly salary of Sh165,000, meaning each will get Sh1.32 million for the eight months.

The electoral body and the Attorney-General want the appellate court to nullify a High Court ruling that stated MCAs be paid salaries for the eight months that was shaved off their five-year term due to the delay in holding the 2013 General Election.

The ruling said the ward representatives’ term in office was to end on March 3, 2018, paving the way for taxpayers to fork out Sh3.3 billion for MCAs’ pay.

The IEBC in court papers said the High Court judgment creates illegitimate county assemblies.

“Any attempt to grant the Members of the County Assembly an extension of their term other than in accordance with the provisions of Article 177(1) sets a dangerous precedent for our fledgling economy,” said the IEBC.

Currently, there are 2,526 MCAs each earning a basic monthly salary of Sh165,000, meaning each will get Sh1.32 million for the eight months.

The commission said the judge allowed MCAs who are neither elected nor nominated, as provided for in the Constitution, to continue serving after the expiry of their term in office.

Attorney General Githu Muigai separately argues that High Court judge Edward Muriithi erred in law by failing to appreciate that Article 194(1)(f) of the Constitution which provides that the office of MCA becomes vacant at the end of the term of the assembly before a General Election is held.

The IEBC on its part, said given the petition called on the court to consider and determine whether the term of the MCAs extended beyond August 8, which would in effect result in compensation for loss of income and other benefits, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission should have been heard on the matter.

“The High Court also lacked jurisdiction to make a finding MCAs were entitled to damage for loss of income.

“The mandate to resolve employment disputes between employer-employee is only reserved to the Employment and Labour Relations Court,” IEBC in court papers.

PAYE Tax Calculator

Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.