The Judiciary is once again facing tough questions after revelations that billions of shillings in taxpayers’ money may have been lost through unregulated allowances.
Lawmakers have taken issue with the way judges and senior judicial staff have been receiving per diems far above the limits set by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC). This has sparked a debate on whether the financial independence of the Judiciary can justify such spending without clear oversight.
Many now argue that accountability must remain a priority, even for institutions meant to be independent, to protect public funds and maintain fairness.
The controversy dates back to July 2019, when former Chief Registrar Anne Amadi introduced a new system of allowances. The structure placed the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice at the highest level, earning Ksh30,000 per day for local travel.
Judges and the Chief Registrar were set at Ksh25,000 daily, while Chief Magistrates, Deputy Chief Registrar, the Chief Kadhi, and senior staff in job groups PLS 16 and 17 received Ksh20,000. The move drew attention immediately, with many warning that such payments were unusually high compared to other arms of government.
The Auditor-General’s report for the financial year ending June 30, 2023, confirmed those fears by flagging the allowances as irregular and outside SRC’s guidelines.
The report stated that the Judiciary deliberately paid higher rates, resulting in billions of shillings being spent without proper approval. This triggered the intervention of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which summoned Chief Registrar Winfridah Mokaya on September 10 to explain the decision.
During the session, Mathioya MP Edwin Mugo pressed Mokaya on who decides the rates for such allowances. He argued that while allowances should be guided by SRC surveys that consider hotel prices and economic conditions, the Judiciary seemed to be setting its own benchmarks.
He warned that allowing such discretion could create inequality and lead to runaway public spending.
Mokaya defended the decision, saying the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) relied on rates used by the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) and did internal benchmarking before SRC released its 2022 circular. However, MPs dismissed her explanation, noting that PSC’s benchmarks are themselves controversial and have previously been nullified by SRC.
They insisted that the Judiciary must align its spending with the same framework that governs other public officers.Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu’s report went further, describing the payments as a breach of the law and labeling them irregular expenditure.
She revealed that the highest-ranking judicial officers, including the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, judges, and senior staff, were the main beneficiaries. The findings have raised concerns that such practices could undermine public confidence in the Judiciary, an institution meant to be the guardian of justice.
With rising public anger over government spending and the high cost of living, legislators are demanding that the Judiciary produce the Supreme Court ruling it claims to have relied on, as well as details of the benchmarking exercise that informed the allowances.
Citizens are watching closely, and failure to provide answers may deepen the mistrust in an already strained system.
At a time when Kenyans are paying higher taxes and struggling with economic hardships, unchecked spending by key state institutions risks eroding the very principles of accountability and justice that they are supposed to uphold.
