The Constitutional Nature Of The Hustler Fund Challenged In Court

By Collins Wanzallah

A group calling itself “Linda Ugatuzi” has moved to court to challenge the constitutional nature of the recently launched Hustler Fund. They say that the fund was meant for contingency needs, which means it is money which should be used on citizens when they are in dire need. “There is no obligation to give it back and no one should pay back until this case is heard and determined, “one of the group’s leaders, Fred Ogolla said.

“What is illegal about this fund is that the government lends you money with interest and there is no office to visit if the deal goes wrong, “added Ogolla. He claims that Kenyans are being informed that they will be on a pension when they retire from active life but have not been informed of where their savings would be or where they would go for the withdrawals. The group argues that the President of Kenya Hon William Ruto had promised during campaigns that if elected, he would ensure the Hustler Fund became operational. After assuming office, he illegally sought to fulfil some of his campaign promises which included the formation of the said fund.

Mr Ogolla also contends that there are no bank accounts for Kenyans and there is no board for accountability and guarantee of continuity of the fund. “Parliament has not been involved nor did a cabinet approval sought on how the fund should be structured, “he added. They say that there is hunger in the country and the government is allowed to take up 10 Billion shillings from the Constituency Fund. But the government has taken 50 Billion shillings to lend to Kenyans on empty stomach and leave them in more debt.

The applicants have raised over 15 concerns that they want the court to address including how the fund operates as it has no known established office or entity. Wendo on the other hand has said that Kenyans are being subjected to forced savings without a defined interest rate cap. “There was no competitiveness in choosing institutions, like Safaricom, KCB etc,” he added.

The group is also raising questions as to when public participation in the allocation of the funds takes place. They argue that Kenyan Mpesa PINs are collected which makes it easy for them to be defrauded of their other funds. “Technology platform vendors are not closed, contrary to the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. Consequently, there is a big risk and data breach, ’added Wendo.

Leave a Reply