Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah has responded to a legal notice from lawyer
Ahmednasir Abdullahi regarding remarks he made on the floor of the Senate on
July 9, 2025.
Omtatah had raised questions in the House
concerning the approval of duty-free waivers for rice imports.
He says his remarks were made in the course of his constitutional oversight
mandate as a legislator.
“With due respect, your demands are not only
devoid of legal merit but represent a fundamental misunderstanding of
parliamentary privilege, constitutional oversight, and the doctrine of
separation of powers,” Omtatah said in his written response dated August 25.
He added: “At the outset, I hereby categorically
state that I stand by every word in my request for a statement from the Senate
regarding the approval of duty-free waivers for rice imports. I made the
request in the public interest and I will continue to perform my duties as a
Senator to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.”
The senator maintains that his words in the
Senate were made in the discharge of parliamentary duty and fall within his
constitutional mandate as a legislator and representative of the people of
Busia County.
In a letter dated July 31, 2025, Abdullahi had
argued that the remarks unfairly portrayed his client in a negative light,
saying they implied misconduct without evidence.
He described the statements as harmful to his client’s reputation and urged
the senator to retract them.
“This was
not oversight but rather a calculated misuse of the Senate platform to peddle
unverified and harmful claims. It is especially alarming that you, a public
watchdog and long-standing advocate for due process, would engage in the very
conduct you purport to fight against: trial by innuendo, without evidence and
without hearing the other side,” Ahmednasir said.
Omtatah, however, insists that Article 117 of the Constitution of Kenya,
2010, and the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, provide legislators with
immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for anything said in Parliament.
“Therefore, my remarks, which were not
defamatory at all, fall squarely within the protective ambit of parliamentary
privilege. This provision was enacted precisely to prevent attempts meant to
gag or intimidate legislators from debating matters of public interest within
the House. The immunity is not qualified. It is the bedrock of parliamentary
democracy, ensuring Members discharge their oversight mandate without
intimidation, fear of reprisals, or the threat of litigation,” Omtatah said.
