The legal battle over President William Ruto’s pet project, the Affordable Housing Levy, is set for a climactic showdown later this month. A five-judge bench has been constituted to hear the consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the tax that has shrunk the payslips of millions of Kenyans.

The stakes could not be higher. For the government, the levy is the engine of its employment strategy, generating billions monthly to fund construction sites across the country. For the petitioners—including civil society and trade unions—it is an illegal raid on income and a violation of property rights.

The Legal Arguments

Justices Olga Sewe, John Chigiti, Josephine Mongare, and others will have to untangle a complex web of constitutional law. The core question: Can the state force a citizen to save for a house they may not want or need?

• The Government's Case: The Attorney General argues that the levy is a tax, not a savings scheme, and is essential for the "public good" of providing decent housing (Article 43).
• The Petitioners' Case: They argue the levy is discriminatory (targeting only salaried workers initially) and lacks a proper legal framework for how the funds are managed. They also cite the lack of meaningful public participation.
• The Political Risk: If the court strikes down the levy, it would blow a KES 60 billion hole in the budget and halt ongoing projects, potentially triggering job losses and political unrest.

A Test for the Judiciary

This case is a litmus test for judicial independence. Will the bench bow to executive pressure, or will they uphold the letter of the law regardless of the political cost? Nairobi holds its breath.