Post date: Tue, Oct 7, 2025
Category: Oversight
By: Jairus Kedogo, Oscar Ochieng,

In mid-August 2025, President William Ruto accused Parliament of corruption, alleging that committees routinely accept bribes to pass bills and influence the impeachment of governors. While the President did not provide documentary evidence to back these claims, they cannot be dismissed outright. Over time, Kenya’s Parliament has displayed recurring weaknesses and patterns of misconduct that give credence to such accusations.

A closer look at recent legislative behaviour reveals not just occasional lapses, but systemic failures that compromise Parliament’s independence, credibility, and its role as defined by articles 94 to 96 of the Constitution of Kenya.  These failures carry grave economic and democratic consequences.

The conduct of many MPs and Senators after that direct accusation was unsurprising because they felt that their honour was insulted. While their denial was vituperative and predictable, this contest with the executive provides a moment for more circumspection than a majority of legislators portrayed. A highlight of six examples may demonstrate to offended legislators Parliament’s failings.

1. Passing of Unpopular Bills Against Public Will

Democracy is not just about elections and representation; it is also the foundation of economic freedom. According to the 2025 Index of Economic Freedom, Kenya scored 54.8, placing it in the “Mostly Unfree” category. This is below the global average of 58.6. The score reflects constrained economic freedom, marked by weak rule of law, substantial political interference in the courts, and only marginal progress in reforming public finance management.

When Parliament abdicates its constitutional role, it denies citizens both political voice and economic opportunity. The passage of the Finance Bill 2024 is a perfect example: MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour despite widespread public opposition and ongoing violent response to peaceful protests and dissent. This not only undermined Article 10 values and principles of governance but also imposed punitive taxes that squeezed household incomes, raised the cost of doing business, and triggered youth-led protests. Here, weak democracy directly translated into diminished economic freedom.

The Finance Bill 2024, framed as a revenue-raising measure, sought to generate an additional Ksh. 302 billion through new taxes. This followed the Finance Bill 2023, which had introduced the Housing Levy Fund requiring salaried Kenyans to contribute 1.5% of their gross monthly pay, matched by employers. Despite widespread public opposition, heated protests, and even the storming of the National Assembly in June 2024, Parliament still voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill.

The economic context made the move even more questionable. According to the World Bank, Kenya’s per capita income in 2024 stood at US$ 2,206 while poverty rate in 2022 was at 40%. Yet MPs argued that the country’s tax-to-GDP ratio was low and needed raising, ignoring that this measure would make citizens poorer while undermining business profits and so harming employment.

This pattern of passing unpopular laws is not new. From the Social Health Insurance Act, 2023 which created the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF). The Act introduced a 2.5% mandatory contribution of their gross pay to the Fund without a clear guarantee of quality and accessible healthcare; to the Security Laws (Amendment) Act of 2014, which curtailed civil liberties, to repeated attempts to weaken independent commissions, Parliament has repeatedly acted as an extension of the Executive. Some members of the Civil Society Organisations and even some sitting MPs think that the current legislature is the weakest since the reintroduction of multiparty elections.

2. Compromised Vetting and Approval of Public Officials

It is common knowledge that the nomination of candidates for some state jobs is heavily influenced by political patronage rather than the ability and qualifications of the individuals concerned. It is disturbing that this trend is also extending to the National Assembly where they have turned the vetting process into a transactional ritual, confirming the President’s suggestion that committees are open to monetary inducements.

Chapter Six of the Constitution (Article 73) lays bare that only people of integrity should hold public office. The Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act further provides for the vetting of nominees for key public positions, ensuring competence and ethical standing. In practice, however, this process has often been compromised. A former Cabinet Secretary has admitted that MPs openly asked him for money during vetting for the position.

Parliament has often been criticised for shielding politicians and endorsing nominees for state positions without subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny. A notable example is the case of a Cabinet Secretary nominee whose academic qualifications were under question. Despite persistent doubts, Parliament approved the appointment without conclusively verifying the authenticity of the credentials, a move that highlights how issues of academic integrity are frequently overlooked. The approval of individuals with questionable character and weak academic backgrounds underscores not only Parliament’s failure to uphold accountability but also a broader disappointment in Kenya’s governance and leadership standards.

3. Surrendering Budgetary Oversight to the Executive

Chapter 8 of the Constitution delegates to Parliament the representative, legislative and oversight functions. Parliament is therefore mandated to monitor and oversight the executive in the economic management of the country. Yet it has increasingly ceded this role to the National Treasury, becoming a rubber stamp for the Executive’s fiscal priorities.

Section 50(5) of the PFM Act requires Parliament to set a debt ceiling. Legal Notice No. 34 of 2015 further directs that this ceiling be reviewed annually. For a country like Kenya, where public debt is already high and fiscal sustainability is fragile, adopting fiscal rules with legislated debt limits is critical for medium-term consolidation. Yet Kenya’s public debt reached Ksh. 11.5 trillion, equivalent to 66.5% of nominal GDP in May 2025, showing Parliament’s abdication of this duty. Time and again, parliament has approved raising of debt ceilings without interrogating sustainability. In June 2023, parliament approved the replaced of the nominal GDP measure to a debt anchor of 55% of GDP in Net Present Value (NPV) terms, a measure which is still breached.

Section 31 (2) of the PFM Act further gives powers to parliament to request and receive reports on loans made to the national government when debating matters relating to public debt. However, the “request” provision has been weakened as the balance of power leans towards the executive; parliament seldom receives the requests in full and the information on public debt is never fully disclosed by the executive. Parliament simply forgot its job and whose brief it holds in that House. The principle of Separation of Powers doesn’t exist; checks and balances have been reduced to a mere rumour.

4. Clinging to Unconstitutional Funds (CDF and NGAAF) Despite Court Rulings

In early July 2025, Kenya’s Parliament passed a constitution amendment bill seeking to enshrine three controversial funds in the Constitution: The Constituency Development Fund (CDF), the National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF), and a newly passed Senate Oversight Fund (SOF). While its proponents claim the amendment will stabilize development financing, critics argue it aims to shield politically controlled funds from legal scrutiny. In 2015 and again in 2022, civil society organizations successfully challenged the legality of the CDF in court. The Judiciary found the fund unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers by allowing MPs to usurp functions reserved for the executive.

The CDF and NGAAF, both long criticized for weak accountability, have enabled legislators, whose core mandate is to represent, legislate, and oversee, to implement local development projects directly. This dual role creates inherent conflicts of interest and undermines fiscal oversight. The proposed Senate Oversight Fund adds another troubling dimension. While senators are constitutionally mandated to oversee county governments, creating a fund they directly control introduces a structural conflict of interest. The entrenchment of unconstitutional funds like CDF and NGAAF further illustrates how political capture distorts economic freedoms.

In reality, these funds often serve as tools of political patronage and blunt the incentive for proper fiscal controls by the legislative arm of government. For instance, an aide to an MP was caught on camera handing out cash in church, money that people readily concluded was from the NG-CDF. By clinging to these funds, Parliament not only undermines devolution but also weakens the very principle of checks and balances that underpins the Constitution.

5. Senate’s Abuse of Impeachment as a Cash Cow

The Senate is no stranger to controversy, especially regarding allegations that Senators have been compromised or even extorted money to influence impeachment outcomes. In several high-profile cases, insinuations of bribery have overshadowed the constitutional process, raising doubts about whether decisions are based on evidence of abuse of office or on political deals. Such conduct undermines the Senate’s mandate to safeguard devolution and hold governors accountable, turning impeachment into a bargaining tool rather than a tool of accountability. In the case of former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko’s 2020 impeachment, reports indicated that Senators were lobbied and financially influenced. After his removal, Sonko alleged that each Senator received Ksh 2 million as a “Christmas gift” to back the motion.

In relation to the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, reports surfaced alleging massive behind-the-scenes lobbying, with payments of up to KSh 10 million each reportedly offered to Senators to vote in favour of his removal. Other accounts suggested that legislators were approached privately and promised cash incentives to influence their vote. While these remain unsubstantiated allegations, they highlight the cloud of suspicion that hangs over parliamentary processes, where money and political deals appear to matter more than accountability. Where sufficient legal grounds exist, due process should guide outcomes. Instead, impeachment has increasingly become a bargaining chip, eroding the legislature’s independence and the credibility of a critical accountability mechanism.

6. Refusal to Declare Wealth – A Symptom of Deeper Rot

Finally, the refusal of many MPs and Senators to declare their wealth publicly reflects a culture of opacity and impunity. Section 26 of the Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003 (now repealed by the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025)required state officers to declare their income, assets, and liabilities. Yet Parliamentarians resisted calls for full public disclosure, often citing “privacy” concerns. Wealth declarations are a proven and highly effective anti-corruption tool. In South Africa, MPs’ assets are publicly accessible. In Kenya, by contrast, secrecy fuels suspicion. The lavish lifestyles of many legislators; luxury cars, properties, and foreign holidays sit uneasily against their official salaries. Kenyan citizens understand that Kenyan legislators and their staff are well compensated for a country with poor citizens. That notwithstanding, the lifestyles that many of them live and the assets under their control far exceed what even the impressive wages that they earn could afford them. Against an aggressive growth of parliament’s budget allocations, expansion of committee sittings and excessive investment in physical facilities, the Kenyan citizen is justified to question the moral turpitude of many of their elected representatives. And this shows in the 2025 Afrobarometer ranking, which ranked Parliament as the least trusted arm of government, with an approval rating of 44%, compared to 50% for the Judiciary and 45% for the Presidency.

As some parliamentarians have argued in their defence, President Ruto’s hands may not be clean either yet his accusations against Parliament reflect a troubling reality. Over the years, Parliament has passed unpopular laws, compromised the vetting of officials, traded away its budgetary oversight for inflated allocations, defied court rulings, monetised impeachment, and resisted wealth transparency. These patterns weaken democracy, burden citizens, and erode trust in public institutions. Unless Parliament reforms itself, Kenya risks sliding into executive authoritarianism with a legislature complicit in eroding accountability.

---

More Blogs

---

---

---

---

---

---

< < < More Blogs