Senate strikes back in Constitution review dispute
The proposals are based on the National Dialogue Committee’s recommendations, but senators say they were never part of the discussion.
A fresh power battle has broken out in Parliament as senators move to draft their own set of constitutional amendments, rejecting an ongoing review process led by the National Assembly that they say locks them out.
MPs recently concluded public hearings on a bill that seeks to anchor the National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF), National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF), and Senate Oversight Fund (SOF) in the Constitution.
The proposals are based on the National Dialogue Committee’s recommendations, but senators say they were never part of the discussion and have dismissed the process as one-sided.
“What we’ve seen happening under the guise of public participation is MPs pushing for CDF. We’re being sidelined, and we reject that process,” said one senator who spoke after a closed-door meeting on Thursday.
In response, the Senate has formed a special team, including senior counsels Tom Ojienda and Okong’o Omogeni, alongside senators Edwin Sifuna and Hillary Sigei, to develop a parallel set of proposals.
The goal, they say, is to protect the Senate’s role in lawmaking, which they feel is under threat.
Senators have long complained that their bills are routinely thrown out by the National Assembly, especially when tagged as “money bills”, a label that bars Senate involvement.
They believe MPs are misusing this rule to block Senate-sponsored laws, only to reintroduce them under different names.
The senators are now pushing for reforms that would give the Senate greater authority, even indicating that they are ready to drop the Senate Oversight Fund proposal if it helps secure stronger constitutional recognition.
At the same time, they plan to challenge a Supreme Court ruling made in March, which upheld the legality of 21 laws passed without Senate involvement.
The ruling followed a petition by Senate leaders who wanted the court to clarify the role of both Houses under Article 110(3) of the Constitution.
With both chambers now preparing different versions of constitutional changes, the standoff is expected to deepen, setting up a possible legal and political showdown over how the country’s laws should be made.
