The debate over the Finance Bill, 2026, has revealed serious weaknesses in some lawmakers’ understanding of the proposed legislation, raising doubts about the depth of parliamentary scrutiny on critical public finance issues.
The Bill, which sets out revenue-raising measures, was introduced in the National Assembly on Tuesday and is now being debated before consideration and a vote.
During the deliberations, several MPs were put on the spot after referring to clauses that are not in the Bill or attributing provisions to the legislation that could not be confirmed.
In a number of cases, fellow lawmakers asked them to identify the exact sections they were citing, only for the members to struggle to justify their claims.
The uncomfortable exchanges unfolded on the floor of the House as MPs took turns to either support or oppose the Finance Bill.
Although strong debate is expected on such a significant law, some contributions appeared to rely more on rumours and political messaging than on the actual text of the Bill.
Deputy Minority leader Robert Mbui was the first to stir controversy after arguing that the Finance Bill should be rejected because it proposes extra taxes on mitumba, or second-hand, clothes.
“Mr Speaker, this Bill is going to tax clothes for those people who cannot afford new clothes. We are introducing new tax on mitumba,” Mbui said.
Majority leader Kimani Ichung’wah immediately challenged him to direct the House to the specific clause containing the additional taxes.
“What Robert is saying is the propaganda that is being propagated outside there; I want to challenge Robert Mbui to show the House and the country where in this Bill the tax proposal is,” Ichung’wah said.
“Because this Bill has no such tax proposal.”
After Session Speaker Farah Maalim allowed the Kathiani MP to substantiate his remarks, Mbui, unable to identify the exact clause, withdrew the claim, raising further questions about his familiarity with the document.
“This is a huge Bill, for me I would have to go through clause by clause so that I can find it,” Mbui said.
“Mr Speaker, what I will do, in the interest of time, because I see members want to eat into my time, is withdraw that comment.”
On Wednesday, Kabuchai MP Majimbo Kalasinga also referred to a clause that does not exist, saying it proposed additional taxes on mitumba clothes.
While holding what appeared to be a copy of the Bill, Kalasinga directed the House to a non-existent Clause 169.
“Kenyans are not fools. When they watch and read, and we say we have not imposed any tax on mitumba and yet it is put here in Clause 169,” Kalasinga said, waving a copy of the Finance Bill, 2026.
“Mr Speaker, those [saying there is no additional taxes on mitumba] put us in a very awkward position.”
It later emerged that the Clause 169 cited by the Kabuchai MP was not part of the Bill, with Session Speaker Ugenya MP David Ochieng’ pointing this out to the lawmaker, who had by then returned to his seat.
“I want to request as follows, I know all of us are emotive but let us be factual,” Ochieng’ interjected.
“I am listening to Kalasinga and he refers to Clause 169 and you know it is not there.”
Majority Whip Sylvanus Osoro also rejected claims that the Bill imposes a tax on mitumba, explaining that the proposal instead moves second-hand clothes into an exempt category.
“This House has been told that the proposal in the Finance Bill seeks to raise tax on mitumba. Far from it, on the contrary, what this Bill seeks is to completely move mitumba to exempt status,” Osoro said.
“Currently, those vendors who deal in mitumba clothes pay 16 per cent but looking keenly at the First and Second Schedules of the Bill, and specifically Clause 21, which has been deleted, it is no longer there. There is nothing that calls for an increase in the percentage of taxes on mitumba imports.”
In a separate incident, Makueni MP Rose Museo claimed that the Finance Bill under consideration by the House was intended to raise Sh4.8 trillion.
However, the Bill is meant to generate only Sh98.5 billion.
This is not the first time MPs have faced scrutiny over their understanding of a Finance Bill.
In 2024, after widespread opposition to that year’s Finance Bill, some lawmakers publicly expressed regret, admitting they had lost significant sector-specific incentives in their regions.
Those admissions drew criticism from stakeholders, who argued that elected leaders have a duty to thoroughly examine legislative proposals before taking positions on them.
The latest debate comes amid rising political tension ahead of the second anniversary of the Gen Z-led anti-government protests that shook the country in 2024.
The demonstrations were mainly triggered by opposition to tax measures included in the Finance Bill of that year.
Treasury CS John Mbadi has previously warned against what he described as deliberate misrepresentation of the current Finance Bill by some politicians.
Yesterday, Ichung’wah accused sections of the opposition of selectively presenting information about the proposed law in an effort to stir public anger and mobilise protests.
“The propaganda was started by Kalonzo Musyoka. What the 14 members who could force division were trying to do was to incite emotions of Kenyans, but Kenyans know them very well,” the Kikuyu MP said.
Critics, however, argue that public concerns can only be addressed through transparent communication and a comprehensive debate grounded in facts rather than political messaging.
Bumula MP Wanami Wamboka, while calling for the Bill to be rejected, said several hidden issues would make life more difficult.
“My quarrel with this Bill is how the government wants to raise the revenue. When you read it closely, this is a Bill that will make life more expensive for ordinary Kenyans, and it does so quietly. It is like cancer, at first, you may not notice it, but ultimately you are destined for death,” Wamboka said.
“My single biggest problem with this Bill is that it hides price increases inside technical tax language. Its favourite trick is to move essential goods from zero-rated VAT to exempt VAT.”
Meanwhile, the Finance Committee has presented wide-ranging amendments to the Finance Bill, 2026, following an extensive public participation exercise across 13 counties.
The committee, chaired by Molo MP Kuria Kimani, removed the proposed 25 per cent excise duty on mobile phones and the related activation tax.
“We are reducing the cost of phones. We have also reduced the cost of bringing in equipment for kidney treatment,” Ugenya MP David Ochieng’ said.
In a major policy shift, the committee recommended retaining zero-rated VAT status for locally assembled mobile phones, electric motorcycles, electric bicycles, solar and lithium-ion batteries, electric buses and inputs for animal feed manufacture.
The committee noted that “these items were recently granted zero-rated status under the Finance Act, 2023, to support local manufacturing and reduce the cost of essential goods.”
The Kimani-led team added that “reversing this position would increase production costs, discourage investment, and undermine predictability in the tax system.”
The debate has moved beyond a simple discussion on taxes. It has also become a test of whether elected representatives fully understand the laws they are expected to scrutinise and ultimately pass on behalf of the public.