Recently, fees for government services such as passports, visas, land, and agriculture have increased significantly. Many of them were canceled soon after.
Some suspect that the cancellation stemmed from threats by other governments to retaliate by charging Kenyan applicants to their embassies the same amount. This will punish Kenyan students the most.
These gazette notifications made Kenya the laughing stock of the federation. One example is the increase in “Passport/Visa'' in the “Questions'' section.
The new regulation was that foreigners inquiring about visa applications had to pay Shs1,000 for their inquiries. The following situations occur in CounterForeigner queries: “Is my visa ready?'' Kenyan official: “Before you answer, please go to the cash register there and pay 1,000 Ks and bring me the official receipt.'' Well, I will answer. ”
According to the Kenya Gazette, these fees were introduced by actors unfamiliar with the rule of law and rule-making, such as the Legislative Planning Division of the Attorney General's Office. They did not consult the drafters of the legislation at all.
In any case, most of the notices were illegal and invalid. There are two principles for testing the price of government services. The first set arises from the Constitution. Some government services are so fundamental to the nation's goals and means that the Constitution actually prohibits the collection of fees for these services. One example is when a lawsuit is brought regarding a violation of the Bill of Rights. Article 22(3)(c) provides: [such] procedure. ”
However, section 48 is usually the guiding principle when charges are properly brought. States shall ensure access to justice for all and, where fees are required, they shall be reasonable and do not interfere with access to justice. ” Three principles are extracted. 1. Fees do not bar access to the Service. 2. Fees may not invalidate, negate, violate, or infringe on any other constitutional rights. 3. Fees must be reasonable.
The second principle is where such fees are imposed not by Parliament but by smaller individuals or offices, such as the Cabinet Secretariat or a specified authority, and Parliament has delegated legislative powers through a major Act of Parliament. Appears on. Therefore, this is delegated legislation, previously also called subsidiary legislation, which is now enacted on the basis of a statutory instrument.
The tests that apply to all delegated legislation, in addition to the constitutional tests mentioned above, are: 1. Is the person delegating the power authorized by principal law to do so? 2. Is the person imposing a fee on the Official Gazette a valid person to whom the power is delegated by principal law? 3 Are the fees and delegated laws reasonable? 4. Fees or delegated laws must be able to be complied with. 5. Delegated legislation must not be vague or ambiguous. 6. A fee or delegated law must be created only for the purposes specified in the principal law. 7. Fees and delegated laws must not be an abuse of power. 8. The power to delegate must be expressly provided for in the Principal Act. There is no implied power to delegate or issue delegated legislation. If any of these are not complied with, the fees and supporting laws themselves will be invalid and unenforceable. Very often, delegated legislation gives rise to minor or serious crimes. Therefore, there is a further need for these tests to be met. Recent Federal Register notifications do not pass these tests. They are void and have no legal effect.
Moreover, they do not meet the Constitution's primary concerns. This means that there was no public participation in raising these fees. (See Article 10)
First, the range of price increases is very broad, affecting several different populations, from farmers to students, small businesses, and the tourism industry. All of this raises various concerns that should be brought to the attention of relevant ministers. Without their participation, this is just as reckless a taxation as the Finance Bill.
Second, increasing existing rates by several times gives the impression that the new rates, even approximately, are not the actual cost for the government to provide these services. Rather, it gives the impression that a bankrupt government is desperately fighting for even 1,000 shillings.
The author is a senior advisor
