Wetangula now faulted for his 'skewed reading' of judgments

Like his Biblical namesake, Moses Wetangula is charged with the responsibility of not only handing down the laws to Kenya's lawmakers in Parliament, but also interpreting the laws. But he has increasingly found himself in the thick of burning bushes for interpreting laws in ways his critics and courts say is misleading 

After ignoring the High Court decision that declared Azimio La Umoja coalition as the Majority party in the National Assembly, Wetangula is in the eye of the storm again, this time for communicating that the High Court judgement on roads maintenance levy fund was a win to MPs.

In what lawyers, governors and senators described as a ‘skewed interpretation of the law’ to favour the National Assembly, Wetangula on Thursday maintained that the High Court judgement issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi favoured the MPs. The lawmakers have been in a vicious court battle with governors over the control of Sh10 billion meant for the Roads Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF).

“I congratulate the MP who acted for the National Assembly on pro bono terms for gallantly fighting for you (referring to MPs). Today is your day to smile because the RMLF provision is back to you,” Wetangula told the MPs.

National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichungwa, who described the judgement as ‘a progressive judgement’ told the Cabinet Secretary to ‘forthwith release the monies to the Kenya Rural Roads Authority (Kerra).

“I wish to express my gratitude to the legal team that represented the National Assembly on the RMLF and I also congratulate the court for the progressive judgement that it delivered. The judgement is progressive for the country and the people of Kenya who have suffered immensely with roads being unattended because of the monies held belonging to Kerra. I hope the CS will forthwith release the monies to Kerra,” Ichungwa said.

But the judgement that Ichungwa and Wetangula were referring to declared that the decision of the National Assembly dated September 28, 2023, to unilaterally remove and or fail to provide for the county governments as beneficiaries of RMLF in the financial year 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 and its further decision of August 13, 2024, to further remove devolved units as beneficiaries of the levy fund amounted to a threat to undermine devolution and thus unconstitutional.

 “A declaration that any appropriation of funds from RLMF by the National Assembly that does not provide for the county governments as beneficiaries of the RLMF undermines the principles of devolution, is unconstitutional, unenforceable, illegal null and void,” part of the landmark judgement read.

While the judgement was expected to settle a protracted legal battle between the National Assembly and governors, the different interpretations by the leaders were an indication that the tug of war between the Council of Governors, The Senate and the National Assembly is far from over.

According to senators and governors, Wetangula’s interpretation was skewed, biased, and misleading. Others claimed the Speaker had developed a tendency to misinterpret the law in a skewed manner to make the MPs happy.

Makueni Senator Dan Maanzo dismissed Wetangula’s communication to the National Assembly saying the judgement was clear that the roads maintenance fund was purely for counties.

“Maybe, he was mis-briefed or decided to make the MPs happy. But he has developed a habit of misleading the MPs in his communication of the court orders,” Maanzo said.

Kirinyaga Governor Ann Waiguru maintained that it was not time for drama but for Parliament to urgently make arrangements for an intergovernmental mechanism to resolve the unnecessary dispute to fix roads.

“The High Court judgement speaks for itself. It set aside the intended allocation of RMLF Funds to KENHA, KERRA and KURA without making provision for county governments. It declared the law permitting such allocations unconstitutional. It declared the current classification of roads, which prejudices county governments, unconstitutional,” Waiguru said, adding:

“This is not a time for histrionics. It is time for Parliament to urgently make arrangements for an intergovernmental mechanism that resolves this unnecessary dispute so that Kenyan roads can be fixed. Further delays are untenable and a disservice to the people of Kenya”

According to lawyer Sebastian Mutinda, it was high time Wetangula treaded carefully while seeking to interpret court orders as his remarks could create a crisis.

“This is not the first time Wetangula, a senior lawyer, is issuing a controversial interpretation of court orders. You all remember how he dismissed the High Court ruling on declaration of Azimio la Umoja as the Majority in Parliament and how he poked holes in the Supreme Court decision that granted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community the rights to form a lobby group,” noted Mutinda.

The lawyer was referring to Wetangula’s communication on February 8 when he also dismissed the High Court’s ruling on his dual role as Speaker and Ford Kenya party leader, terming the decision as mere "ordinary comments" in law that are non-binding and have no practical effect.

The judges found Wetangula in blatant violation of the Constitution, stating that he should have stepped down as party leader upon assuming the Speakership.

“The dual role is unlawful and unconstitutional. Once he became Speaker of the National Assembly, he ceased to be the leader of Ford Kenya party,” the three-judge-bench ruled. 

Despite his remarks, Wetangula appealed the decision on May 21 but the Court of Appeal declined to stay the High Court orders regarding the majority coalition and on his suitability to continue holding his position.

“Even after the contested Speaker’s ruling of February 12, 2025, the National Assembly has continued to discharge its duties, albeit with some acrimony,” the court observed.

On February 27, Wetangula poked holes at the Supreme Court judgment that granted the LGBTQ community the right to form a lobby group.

Wetangula said the majority ruling on the issue risked eroding the moral fabric due to the consequences occasioned by the right to association of the group deemed unlawful.

“Kenya is deeply religious. Each Individual and/or Public institution, including the Judiciary, has a duty to uphold, defend and protect public morals. The Supreme Court pronouncement may lead to unintended and unhelpful consequences,” he tweeted.