Contentious Parliamentary Bill Sparks Legal And Public Uproar Over Threat to Constitution

A new push by Parliament to entrench the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), the National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF), and the Senate Oversight Fund (SOF) into Kenya’s Constitution is facing fierce opposition from legal experts, civil society and sections of the public, who warn it threatens key constitutional pillars such as devolution, separation of powers, and prudent financial governance.

The Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed by the National Assembly on July 1 with an overwhelming majority (304 in Second Reading and 298 in Third), is now before the Senate.

It seeks to make permanent funds that have previously faced serious legal hurdles, including a 2024 High Court ruling that declared the NG-CDF Act unconstitutional for undermining county governments and breaching the separation of powers doctrine.

Critics, who include the Katiba Institute, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya), former Attorney General Justin Muturi and a section of the public oppose the Bill on several grounds, among them, undermining devolution by duplicating county government functions, violating the separation of powers by involving MPs and Senators in implementation roles meant for the executive, encouraging political patronage and misuse of public funds by entrenching discretionary spending and ignoring previous court rulings that declared some of the funds unconstitutional.

It is also alleged to circumvent legal procedures, including the possible requirement for a referendum and lack of a proper legal framework to support the process.

The Bill has also sparked public outrage on social media, where it is widely seen as a self-serving move by lawmakers to secure control over public resources. Some users have called for nationwide protests, citing the Bill as a distraction from unresolved crises.

Despite the backlash, supporters of the Bill including several MPs argue that these funds have played a vital role in improving education access, infrastructure, and grassroots development. They say constitutional entrenchment would ensure continuity and legal clarity.

The Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs reported overwhelming support during public participation forums, though critics claim the process lacked transparency.

Although the Bill is being advanced under Article 256 of the Constitution which allows for parliamentary amendments, a High Court petition is ongoing, with the court temporarily halting any further progress, including presidential assent, until the case is resolved.

While the Bill’s backers argue it guarantees service delivery, opponents view it as a constitutional overreach that risks weakening devolution and entrenching political misuse of funds. The Senate’s upcoming vote and the High Court’s final ruling will determine the Bill’s future.