Socio-political commentator Billy Mijungu.PHOTO:POOL
Imagine working for an entire month, paying income tax on your salary, depositing your earnings into a bank account, and then being asked to pay again simply to access the money you already own.
For millions of Kenyans, this is not a hypothetical scenario. It is a reality that has become so normalized that few stop to question whether it is fair, economically sensible, or even morally justifiable.
The recent argument advanced by commentator Billy Mijungu—that charging customers to withdraw their own money is both unconstitutional and exploitative—may sound radical at first glance. Yet beneath the provocative language lies a legitimate question that deserves serious public debate: why should citizens pay to access funds that legally belong to them?
At the heart of modern banking is a relationship built on trust. Customers entrust financial institutions with their savings, salaries, business revenues and investments. In return, banks provide security, convenience and financial services.
However, banks do not merely safeguard money. They actively utilize customer deposits to generate profits through lending, investments and other financial products. The deposits sitting in savings and current accounts form the backbone of the banking industry’s profitability.
This raises an important question. If customers are already providing banks with the raw material needed to generate revenue, should they then be charged every time they seek access to their own funds?
Many consumers would argue that withdrawal charges represent a form of double payment. They already provide banks with capital through deposits. They already pay account maintenance fees, transaction charges and, in some cases, loan-related costs. Yet they continue to incur additional charges merely for withdrawing money.
The issue becomes even more contentious when taxation enters the equation.
A significant proportion of money deposited into Kenyan bank accounts has already been subjected to taxation. Salaried workers pay Pay As You Earn (PAYE). Businesses pay corporate taxes. Traders pay various forms of levies and duties. When customers are subsequently charged withdrawal fees that attract excise duty, many feel they are being taxed repeatedly on the same income.
While economists may argue that excise duty applies to the service rather than the money itself, such distinctions often provide little comfort to ordinary citizens struggling with the rising cost of living.
To many Kenyans, the reality feels simple: earning money is taxed, spending money is taxed, and now accessing money appears to be taxed as well.
The debate becomes even more relevant in an era where financial inclusion has become a national priority.
For years, Kenya has been celebrated globally for expanding access to financial services through banking innovations and mobile money platforms. Yet accessibility is not merely about opening accounts. True financial inclusion also requires affordable access to one’s funds.
When transaction costs become excessive, low-income earners bear a disproportionate burden. A withdrawal fee that may seem insignificant to a high-income customer can represent a substantial expense for a small-scale trader, a farmer, or a casual laborer withdrawing modest sums to meet daily needs.
Consumer rights advocates have long argued that financial services should strike a balance between profitability and fairness. Banks, like any other business, are entitled to generate revenue. They invest heavily in infrastructure, cybersecurity, compliance systems, staff salaries and innovation. These operational costs must be recovered somehow.
However, the question remains whether withdrawal charges represent the most equitable way of achieving this objective.
Around the world, competition has often been the catalyst for transforming consumer experiences. Industries change when disruptive players challenge long-standing practices previously considered untouchable.
The telecommunications sector witnessed this phenomenon. So did transportation and digital commerce.
The banking industry may eventually face a similar moment.
A financial institution that positions itself as a champion of consumer-friendly banking—eliminating withdrawal charges and simplifying access to funds—could potentially attract millions of customers frustrated by existing fee structures.
Such a move would not merely be a marketing strategy; it would represent a fundamental shift in how banks define their relationship with customers.
Yet the solution does not rest solely with banks.
Regulators, policymakers and consumer protection agencies also have a role to play. They must continually evaluate whether existing financial charges promote fairness, competition and financial inclusion. Public policy should encourage banking systems that serve citizens rather than burden them.
Ultimately, the debate over withdrawal charges is not merely about banking fees. It is about ownership, fairness and the social contract between financial institutions and the people whose money sustains them.
Accessing one’s own money should not feel like purchasing a service from a third party. It should feel like exercising a fundamental financial right.
As Kenya continues to modernize its economy and expand financial access, perhaps the time has come to ask difficult questions about practices that have long been accepted without scrutiny.
The real issue is not whether banks deserve to make profits—they do.
The question is whether consumers should continue paying a premium simply to reach into their own pockets.
That conversation is long overdue.
Billy Mijungu is a political pundit and the Migori senatorial aspirant.
About the Author
