NAIROBI — Kenya’s Parliament has rejected a proposal that would have allowed the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to obtain personal and commercial data from banks, mobile networks, and digital platforms without informing the taxpayer.
The controversial clause, buried in the Finance Bill, 2025, was thrown out by the National Assembly’s Finance and Planning Committee. Lawmakers said the move would violate the Constitution, specifically the right to privacy under Article 31.
“The provision does not meet the threshold under the Constitution,” the Committee stated in its report to Parliament. “It undermines protections guaranteed to every Kenyan.”
If passed, the measure would have given KRA sweeping powers to collect financial records, trade secrets, and private communication data without notice or court approval. Institutions like banks, telecom companies, and e-commerce firms would have been compelled to comply or risk penalties.
The Committee warned that KRA already has the legal tools it needs. Citing Section 60 of the Tax Procedures Act, the report explained that tax officers can access personal data if they obtain a court warrant.
“There is no justification to bypass judicial scrutiny,” the Committee said. “Introducing a backdoor channel undermines legal safeguards that are already in place.”
The Data Protection Act, which protects private and commercial data, was also central to the Committee’s rejection. Section 51 of that Act allows exemptions only when they are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The clause in the Finance Bill, they said, failed on all three counts.
Molo MP Kuria Kimani, who chairs the Finance Committee, said the government must respect due process. “We’re not opposed to tax enforcement. But you don’t enforce tax by trampling on constitutional rights.”
Opposition to the clause came from across society. The Law Society of Kenya called it unconstitutional and warned it would erode public trust. In a joint memo with audit firms KPMG, Ernst & Young, and CDH, the group said KRA already has access to data under current law with proper oversight.
“This move undermines due process and taxpayers’ rights to fair adjudication,” the LSK wrote.
KPMG added that the clause would even apply during active tax disputes, calling it a breach of natural justice.
Civil rights groups also condemned the proposal. Amnesty International Kenya and ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa said it marked a step toward “unchecked surveillance” and would open the door to a surveillance state.
They argued the clause lacked clear limits, safeguards, and independent oversight. “It threatened to erode the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 31,” the groups said in a joint statement.
The Architectural Association of Kenya warned the clause could jeopardize professional secrecy. They raised concerns that architects, engineers, and designers could be forced to hand over confidential blueprints, breaching client trust.
The Finance Bill, 2025, is still being reviewed by the National Assembly. While the controversial clause has been removed, the broader tax reforms are expected to spark continued debate in the days ahead.
The Committee’s move signals a firm stance from Parliament: tax enforcement must respect the Constitution, and privacy is not negotiable.
