In a robust defense of the affordable housing levy, the Kenyan government, represented by lawyer Githu Muigai, addressed claims from petitioners alleging that the levy constitutes double taxation, particularly impacting those with existing mortgages.
On September 26, 2024, Muigai asserted that the petitioners led by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah’s argument is fundamentally flawed, explaining that a mortgage is a contractual credit facility, not a form of taxation.
He emphasized that mortgages are treated as debts by homeowners and that most Kenyans are not currently servicing mortgages, contradicting the petitioners’ claims.
The affordable housing levy was introduced to fulfill a vital public purpose as outlined in Article 43 of the Constitution, which aims to ensure equitable access to decent and affordable housing for all citizens.
The funds generated from the levy are intended to support this initiative.
Muigai further noted that Kenyans are already accustomed to various statutory deductions, such as contributions to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) and the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), alongside any private schemes they may engage with.
He explained that the housing levy, set at a rate of 1.5%, is a government policy decision made within the legal framework established by the National Assembly and the Executive.
He emphasized that no tax can be imposed, waived, or altered without legislative approval, arguing that the levy’s alignment with constitutional provisions means it cannot be considered unconstitutional.
