Religious leaders, civil society warn over Sh2.3bn judges’ car grants
Groups urge Supreme Court to protect taxpayers, saying public funds must not be used to shield powerful institutions from accountability
A group photo of the civil society and church leadership group during a press briefing
Religious leaders and civil society organisations have challenged the rising cost of judges’ car grants, warning that taxpayers could bear the burden of billions of shillings in benefits as millions of Kenyans struggle with high living costs, unemployment and mounting taxes.
The groups want the Supreme Court to balance judicial independence with public accountability as it prepares to determine a dispute over the taxable car grant for judges, insisting that no institution should enjoy privileges beyond constitutional scrutiny.
In a joint statement dated October 13, the organisations estimated that a Sh10 million vehicle grant for each judicial position covered by their analysis could cost approximately Sh2.3 billion before tax, or Sh1.61 billion after tax, every four years.
They cautioned, however, that the figures are estimates based on available data and assumptions, not confirmed actual expenditure or a judicial determination on the legality of the grant.
“Who is protecting the Kenyan taxpayer?” the groups posed, arguing that public money should serve citizens rather than fund benefits whose justification and affordability remain contested.
The statement, titled Kenyans Must Not Be Fleeced by an Unholy Union of Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary, was signed by 16 religious and civil society organisations, including Transparency International Kenya, the Kenya Human Rights Commission, the National Council of Churches of Kenya’s Nairobi Region County Coordinating Committee and the Okoa Uchumi Campaign.
The organisations said the dispute raises broader questions about how public officers’ remuneration is determined and whether constitutional safeguards can be interpreted in ways that weaken accountability.
They cited Articles 1, 10, 73 and 201 of the Constitution, which address popular sovereignty, national values, public trust and accountability in public finance.
“Judicial independence is indispensable, but it must never become judicial exceptionalism,” they said, arguing that protecting judges from political interference should not place public expenditure beyond scrutiny.
The dispute centres on the relationship between Article 160(4), which protects judges against disadvantageous variation of their remuneration and benefits, and Article 230, which establishes the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) and sets out principles governing public officers’ pay.
The groups acknowledged that the High Court, in Gachuiri v Attorney General and another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association and another [2024] KEHC 5836 (KLR), held that the taxable car allowance was a protected benefit under Article 160(4).
The Court of Appeal subsequently considered the dispute in Salaries and Remuneration Commission v Gachuiri and three others [2026] KECA 692 (KLR).
The organisations now want the Supreme Court to provide authoritative guidance on the scope of judicial remuneration protections and how they should be reconciled with fiscal sustainability, equity and public accountability.
They also questioned the justification for the disputed private vehicle benefit, noting that their analysis indicates judges have access to official chauffeur-driven transport.
The groups said the government must demonstrate that public benefits have a lawful basis and are proportionate to the country’s economic circumstances.
They argued that the estimated Sh1.61 billion after-tax cost could otherwise support essential services such as healthcare, school infrastructure, medicines, water and agricultural programmes.
“The issue is not whether judges deserve fair remuneration. They do,” the statement said. “The issue is whether a private vehicle benefit of this magnitude is legally justified, equitable and defensible to citizens who finance the State while struggling to meet their basic needs.”
The organisations further called for constitutional scrutiny of public retirement benefits, including those available to judges, saying public service should not become a basis for benefits disconnected from the economic realities of ordinary citizens.
They urged the Supreme Court to clarify the legal status of the disputed grant and the extent to which judicial remuneration is protected against variation, while ensuring that constitutional accountability remains effective.
The groups also called on religious institutions, professional associations, universities, workers’ organisations and the media to sustain peaceful public engagement on public spending.
They maintained that their position was not intended to weaken the Judiciary but to ensure that its independence is matched by integrity and accountability.
“Let the Constitution bind everyone equally. Let public money serve the public good,” the organisations said.
The statement does not establish the final cost of the disputed grants or determine their legality, matters that remain central to the controversy.
