"The Law Was Changed" Tuju Reveals Why He Will Not Pay 1.9 Billion Loan

Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has moved to block repayment of a Sh1.9 billion loan to the East Africa Development Bank (EADB), claiming the bank’s enabling law is unconstitutional. 

He filed the case at the Constitutional Court in Nairobi, arguing that the government has failed to amend the statute despite it being nullified last year.

Tuju contends that the bank has no legal authority to demand repayment while the law governing its operations remains unconstitutional. He insists that enforcing the loan under a nullified law would violate his constitutional rights.

The former CS’s legal team argues that EADB’s attempts to seize his Karen properties are invalid. They maintain that the government’s inaction has left him exposed to unfair financial and property loss.

In the petition, Tuju seeks a declaration preventing EADB from enforcing repayment. He also requests an injunction halting any asset recovery until the law is properly amended.

Tuju emphasizes that the bank cannot rely on an unconstitutional framework to claim his assets. He stresses that repayment obligations must be grounded in a valid law, which he says is currently absent.

Legal experts say the case raises questions about retroactive effect of constitutional rulings. Tuju’s argument hinges on whether an invalid law can be used to enforce past financial transactions.

The government has yet to respond to the filing, but a ruling in Tuju’s favor could halt ongoing loan recovery. It may also push legislators to correct the gaps in EADB’s legal framework.

The case highlights a broader challenge in Kenya’s financial sector. It underscores the risk of enforcing loans under laws later found unconstitutional.

Tuju’s Karen properties remain at the center of the dispute. The former CS’s move is seen as a test of constitutional protections over individual property rights versus claims by state-backed banks.

Observers note that the court’s decision could set a major precedent for future loan disputes. It may influence how development banks pursue repayment where legal frameworks are contested.

Until the Constitutional Court rules, Tuju has refused to pay the loan. He insists that repayment under the current circumstances would be unlawful and unconstitutional.

The dispute is shaping up as one of the most closely watched constitutional-financial cases in Kenya. It could redefine the relationship between politicians, state-backed banks, and property rights.