Hon. Duale, I build information systems for a living, so let me speak to you not as a politician but as the technical man in the room because the defence you have mounted is legally tidy and technically hollow. You have answered the wrong question. The country did not ask whether the two per cent fee is legal. Everyone can see it is gazetted. The country asked whether it should exist and who was positioned to collect it before the ink dried. “Parliament approved it” is not a rebuttal to that, it is a confession that the charge was written into law rather than won in a tender. Let me put it in terms my clients understand. When an organisation buys an ERP, it pays once to build it and a maintenance fee to keep it running. It does not then pay a toll every time a clerk writes a record into a database it already owns. You have built the health rail with public money and then legislated a turnstile on it and pegged the turnstile to two per cent of the value passing through. That is not “a capped fee for the use of a system,” as you put it. The KES 5,000 cap limits a single claim; it does nothing to the aggregate. As enrolment grows and claim volumes rise, that revenue line grows with them, automatically, forever. You have not priced a service. You have indexed a private income to the size of the national health budget. Call that what it is. You defend the arrangement by noting the law “permits sub-contracting.” When a man reaches for the sub-contract to justify the deal, he is protecting whoever sits beneath the consortium and earns the percentage. You told us where to look. Here is the technical truth beneath the legal language: when you write the revenue model a fixed percentage, a named “Data Exchange Component,” a specific architecture into a regulation, you have not run a procurement. Any of us who has sat on the other side of a Microsoft or Oracle negotiation knows exactly what a vendor lock written into law looks like and this is it, only worse, because the customer here cannot walk away. Every Kenyan is the captive user. I will grant you the one thing you are right about. UHC cannot run on paper, and digitisation is not the enemy I would be the last man to argue it. But that is not the fight, and you know it. The fight is whether a public health system, once built with public money, should carry a private, volume-linked toll written into the law itself, and whether the hand collecting it earned that place on merit or was simply named in advance. You closed by saying every shilling under Taifa Care belongs to the Kenyan patient. You wrote that one paragraph after explaining the two per cent that does not. Yours, in candour, Njoroge from Kingeero.