Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah has responded to a legal notice from lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi regarding remarks he made on the floor of the Senate on July 9, 2025.

Omtatah had raised questions in the House concerning the approval of duty-free waivers for rice imports.

He says his remarks were made in the course of his constitutional oversight mandate as a legislator.

“With due respect, your demands are not only devoid of legal merit but represent a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary privilege, constitutional oversight, and the doctrine of separation of powers,” Omtatah said in his written response dated August 25.

He added: “At the outset, I hereby categorically state that I stand by every word in my request for a statement from the Senate regarding the approval of duty-free waivers for rice imports. I made the request in the public interest and I will continue to perform my duties as a Senator to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.”

The senator maintains that his words in the Senate were made in the discharge of parliamentary duty and fall within his constitutional mandate as a legislator and representative of the people of Busia County.

In a letter dated July 31, 2025, Abdullahi had argued that the remarks unfairly portrayed his client in a negative light, saying they implied misconduct without evidence.

He described the statements as harmful to his client’s reputation and urged the senator to retract them.

“This was not oversight but rather a calculated misuse of the Senate platform to peddle unverified and harmful claims. It is especially alarming that you, a public watchdog and long-standing advocate for due process, would engage in the very conduct you purport to fight against: trial by innuendo, without evidence and without hearing the other side,” Ahmednasir said.

Omtatah, however, insists that Article 117 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, provide legislators with immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for anything said in Parliament.

“Therefore, my remarks, which were not defamatory at all, fall squarely within the protective ambit of parliamentary privilege. This provision was enacted precisely to prevent attempts meant to gag or intimidate legislators from debating matters of public interest within the House. The immunity is not qualified. It is the bedrock of parliamentary democracy, ensuring Members discharge their oversight mandate without intimidation, fear of reprisals, or the threat of litigation,” Omtatah said.