Last week, Generation Z took to the streets to protest the Finance Bill. Besides forcing a rejection of the same, the protests informed other unexpected outputs. As I went through routine updates on the protests, I hardly expected to stumble onto matters land. But I did!

Public interest through social media

Posts began popping up on my X (formerly twitter) page attributing a proposal to slap an annual levy to freehold land to the Finance Bill. I knew this to be incorrect. While factual, the proposal was not part of the Finance Bill, but some Land Amendment Bill, tabled by the Leader of the Majority in the National Assembly way back in 2023. Before long, some friends “WhatsApped” me the same provisions, seeking clarification. When the same started doing rounds on some rather serious WhatsApp Walls such those belonging to business lobby groups, my high school Alumni and professional associations, I thought it wise to intervene. This would help to debunk the mix-up, and give direction.

Opinion contributions on proposed taxation

The proposed imposition of an annual levy to freehold land was a matter my colleague Mwenda Makathimo, a land economist, and I, had addressed in an opinion piece published on the Daily Nation on January 10, 2024 under the head “Wrong to tax freehold land”. I’d also shared an opinion piece on the same through this column on February 29, 2024 entitled “Why MPs should reject the push for annual tax on freehold land”. I pulled out the related web links and shared, with clarification. I further re-posted them on my X page. That helped; the enquiries ceased.

Besides providing substantive details, the opinion pieces carried appeals to MPs. Two excerpts illustrate. On the Daily Nation piece, we said, “Through the Land Laws (Amendment) (No 2) Bill of 2023, the Government intends to have owners of freehold land within urban or city areas pay an annual land levy on freehold property. Members of Parliament must beware the implications of this provision to themselves, and Kenyans with freehold properties within urban or city boundaries. They must reject the proposal”.

I had concluded my Business Daily contribution on the subject by an appeal that noted, “I suspect that members of the Lands Committee may have got convinced that the proposal is inappropriate. They however retain the discretion to decide, and accordingly guide the whole house. Let them be bold enough to advise that the provision completely subverts our tenure doctrine, and will burden many freehold landowners who, until now, have been happily enjoying their ancestral rights without minding such annual payments”.

Need for vigilance

Last week’s protests threw this matter back to public discourse. From the social media posts, I was happy to note that Gen-Z has taken interests on matters land. I was happy to see senior citizens and the business community appreciate the threat that the proposed annual levy poses to freehold land interests. There has since circulated communication that the Bill was shelved. Let’s nonetheless remain vigilant.