The High Court has issued orders barring Parliament from submitting the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill 2025 to President William Ruto for assent, pending the outcome of a legal petition filed by Katiba Institute.
In his ruling, Justice Lawrence Mugambi noted that the concerns raised were not idle arguments but presented “weighty constitutional questions” that merited judicial intervention.
“Suspending the process when reasonable doubts exist better serves the public interest than allowing a potentially flawed constitutional amendment to proceed,” he stated.
The court affirmed it had jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting arguments that the matter was premature under the legal doctrine of “ripeness,” which means the issue was too early to be considered by the court. The petition has now been referred to Chief Justice Martha Koome, who will appoint a bench of judges to hear and determine the case.
Until then, the court directed that the Bill should not be submitted for presidential assent. If assented to in defiance of the order, the law will not take effect until the matter is resolved.
The bill, which was passed in July, seeks to entrench three critical funds into the Constitution. These funds are the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), the Senate Oversight Fund (SOF), and the National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF).
The bill aims to provide legal and constitutional protection for the three funds. The NG-CDF finances community projects such as school bursaries and local infrastructure at the grassroots level. The SOF strengthens the Senate’s oversight role over county governments, while the NGAAF enhances support for vulnerable groups, including women, youth, and persons with disabilities.
Following the bill’s passing, Katiba Institute moved to court, raising two key objections. First, the organisation argued that the Bill is constitutionally unnecessary, particularly criticising the creation of new public funds, which they say contradict both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Secondly, the petitioners claim that the Bill includes provisions requiring a public referendum for approval. They argue that Parliament has failed in its constitutional duty to enact a referendum law, more than 14 years after the Constitution came into force. Without such a law, they insist, the amendment process cannot proceed.
The orders have stalled constitutional amendment efforts and are expected to influence how future changes are handled, especially regarding public involvement and legal procedure.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
