The leader of the majority in the National Assembly, Kimani Ichung’wah, has disclosed that the bill that triggered last year’s protests was passed by Parliament.
He explained that the main reason behind the bill was to raise over three hundred billion shillings to finance development projects across the country.
His revelation sheds light on the intentions of the government and how it planned to raise funds, despite facing resistance from the public.
Ichung’wah also clarified that the finance bill was an omnibus bill, meaning it contained several different provisions that could be divided into separate sections.
He pointed out that most of the bill was drafted by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Trade and Investments.
This suggests that its formulation was primarily driven by economic considerations rather than political ones. However, the way it was structured led to widespread opposition, with many Kenyans feeling that the government was overburdening them with taxes.
One of the key provisions in the bill was the increase in taxes on imported sanitary towels. The argument behind this move was to protect local industries and encourage consumers to buy cheaper locally made products.
While the government framed this as a way of supporting domestic businesses, critics saw it as a move that made essential hygiene products more expensive for women, especially those from low-income backgrounds.
Another major component of the bill was the provision on tax relief for individuals and businesses that had done business with the government but had not yet been paid.
The idea was to delay the time before the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) could impose fines or force the payment of taxes on funds that had not yet been received.
This was aimed at preventing businesses from collapsing due to financial strain caused by delayed government payments. However, this raised concerns that it could encourage mismanagement of public funds and allow corruption to thrive, as some entities might exploit the system to avoid tax obligations.
The bill also included measures to support diaspora remittances, encouraging Kenyans abroad to send more money home. This was meant to stabilize the exchange rate at a time when the Kenyan shilling had weakened greatly against the US dollar, reaching over 160 shillings.
By making it easier and more attractive for Kenyans abroad to invest back home, the government hoped to increase foreign currency inflows and reduce the pressure on the local economy.
Another provision in the bill was aimed at preventing the entry of non-biodegradable plastics as part of environmental protection efforts. This required strong enforcement of environmental laws to ensure that harmful plastics did not enter the country.
While this was seen as a positive step in protecting the environment, there were concerns about how well it would be implemented, given past failures in enforcing similar regulations.
Despite the government’s justifications, the bill faced immense public opposition, leading to nationwide protests. Many Kenyans felt that the tax measures placed an unfair burden on ordinary citizens while benefiting a few individuals in government and business.
The protests reflected deep frustrations over the rising cost of living and the perception that the government was not prioritizing the needs of the people.
Ichung’wah’s latest comments confirm that the government was fully aware of the impact of the bill but went ahead with it anyway, further fueling debates on the leadership’s commitment to addressing the concerns of the public.
Leave feedback about this