Wamuzi News Ke
In a dramatic institutional clash, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) has publicly rejected the Judges’ Retirement Benefits Bill, 2025, warning it would plunge taxpayers into a KSh 15 billion financial burden and blatantly violate the Constitution by encroaching on SRC’s exclusive authority.
The rejection could torpedo a legislative bid by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to upgrade retirement perks for superior court judges.
SRC Fires Legal Warning.
Acting SRC CEO Margaret Njoka delivered a scathing memorandum to National Assembly Clerk Samuel Njoroge on July 25, declaring that the Bill directly undermines Article 230(4)(a) of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right to set and review the remuneration of State officers—judges included—for the SRC, not the JSC.
The High Court reaffirmed this in a 2015 ruling. The Bill as drafted seeks to redefine what counts as “pensionable emoluments,” extending it beyond basic salary to include house allowances—contradicting a formal SRC directive issued on October 13, 2023, which explicitly limits pension calculations to basic pay alone.
Fiscal Alarm Bells.
Should the Bill be enacted, SRC estimates it would cost the public purse KSh 1.74 billion in the first year alone, swelling to an overall liability exceeding KSh 15 billion.
The proposed benefits include expanded post-retirement medical cover and transport allowances, none of which SRC has authorised. Njoka warned that approving the Bill could set a dangerous precedent, triggering similar revisionist demands from other sectors of the public service seeking retroactive entitlement adjustments.
JSC Pushes, SRC Holds Firm.
The JSC has been lobbying Parliament to fast-track the Bill, arguing that delayed enactment denies retired judges fair compensation. Meanwhile, SRC maintains that unilateral reform risks breaching principles of fiscal responsibility and constitutional propriety.
Constitutional Fault Lines Exposed.
SRC emphasised that the Bill attempts to override existing law—including the SRC Act—and impose JSC authority above constitutional limits. If adopted, it would nullify SRC’s role in setting benefits for judges, leaving regulatory oversight in limbo.
The Bill even contains clauses stipulating that it takes precedence over conflicting statutes—a direct clash with Article 2(4), which establishes constitutional supremacy.
Legal analysts warn this confrontational approach reopens constitutional fault lines, pitting one independent body (SRC) against another (JSC), and risks legal nullification by Kenya’s courts.
Why This Matters.
Fiscal fallout: KSh 15 billion in taxpayer liability amid rising cost-of-living pressures.Constitutional architecture: A direct test of the separation of powers between SRC and JSC.
Legislative risk: Parliament may face court challenges if it proceeds without SRC’s input.Public trust: Citizens demand transparent and prudent stewardship of public funds.
