Courts halts Ruto's e-Citizen directive

President William Ruto and State Department for Citizen Services Principal Secretary Julius Kibet Bitok during the first anniversary of the e-Citizen Directorate, at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre, Nairobi. [File, Standard]

The High Court in Nairobi has blocked 34 government agencies and parastatals from shifting their services and payment to e-Citizen.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued the orders in a case filed by human rights organisation Kituo cha Sheria and one Hillary Mokaya.

Justice Mwamuye directed that the agencies, which include Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC), and Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) should not act on President William Ruto’s directive until January 30 next year, when the case will be mentioned.

“Pending the inter partes hearing and determination of the Application dated December 5, 2024, a conservatory order be and is hereby issued restraining the Respondents and any other person from compelling the

Interested Parties to act upon the directive issued on November 28, 2024, directing the 1st to 34th Interested Parties to  compulsorily onboard and or migrate to the e-Citizen services platform,” ruled Justice Mwamuye.

In the case, Kituo and Mokaya questioned Ruto’s orders, arguing that the agencies and parastatals are independent and cannot be controlled by the Head of State.

Their lawyer, Mosongo Maosa argued that they all have boards that enjoy autonomy and are bound to make decisions away from the influence of the president or other government officials.

The two also cited government owned banks-Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited and Development Bank of Kenya Limited argued  that the president’s directive is illegal as e-Citizen is not a banking institution.

According to Maosa, the government payment portal is not licensed to take deposits from Kenyans or the banks' customers.

He also said that the Institute of Certified Institute of Public Accountants of Kenya and the Institute of Certified Secretaries are also affected despite being linked to other professional bodies such as the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).

Maosa asserted that Dr. Ruto’s directive would hamper services offered to Kenyans as some have no access to the internet or are knowledgeable enough to use a computer.

He claimed that 34 CEO’s who headed the institutions were at risk of losing their jobs if they did not obey.

“Members of the Kenyan public who experience difficulties or are unable to access the services of the respondents offered on the internet, whether due to lack of necessary equipment and or infrastructure, good network connectivity, ability to afford and access internet, basic computer literacy and internet knowledge are/shall be prevented from accessing by themselves, services being offered by the 1st to 34th Interested Parties on the Government Payment Services,” said Maosa.

While supporting the case, the second petitioner (Mokaya) told the court that only a paltry 4.4 per cent of people living in rural areas have access to a desktop computer, laptop and tablet, while 19.3 per cent have access to the same.

In his affidavit, he said that the digital divide is experienced between the urban rich and poor, the rural and urban citizens, the IT literate and the IT illiterate who the online web portal or website content is also English-dominated and can only be understood by a minority elite.

“Despite ICTs becoming integral to life, not all population segments can access and use ICTs equally. Some segments of the population face more challenges in accessing
or using these technologies than others,” said Mokaya.

According to him, the directive by the President is a violation of the law and an encroachment of mandates given to independent bodies.

He said that CEO’s of the targeted agencies and parastatals were now at risk of being kicked out for failing to obey despite the illegal directive.

“Kenya has a history of CEOs being fired arbitrarily by H E the President since the tenure of the first President. This pattern has continued through successive administrations, undermining the security of tenure and the principles of fair administrative action,” he said.