In a decisive legal intervention, the High Court has temporarily barred the National Assembly from forwarding the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to President William Ruto for assent, pending the outcome of a constitutional challenge.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi, in his conservatory orders, ruled that while the National Assembly may continue with debate and transmit the Bill to the Senate, it cannot proceed to the final step of presenting it to the President.

The ruling followed a petition filed by Katiba Institute, a constitutional watchdog, which questioned both the substance and process of the Bill. The group sought interim orders halting any further legislative progression until their case is fully heard and determined.

“When it comes to potential amendments to the supreme law of our land, following the correct processes and respecting the values enshrined in the Constitution is crucial,”
said Norah Mbagathi, Executive Director of Katiba Institute.

The contested Bill, sponsored by MPs Otiende Amollo and Samuel Chepkonga, was introduced in the National Assembly on March 12, 2025, and seeks to entrench three key public funds into the Constitution:

• The National Government Constituency Fund (NG-CDF)

• The Senate Oversight Fund (SOF)

• The National Government Affirmative Action Fund (NGAAF)

Public participation on the Bill began on May 7, 2025, across all 290 constituencies, with notices circulated via national dailies and the Assembly’s official channels.

However, Katiba Institute argues that the proposed funds are inconsistent with the Constitution’s principles on public finance and accountability. They label the entire amendment effort as “superfluous,” asserting that the inclusion of these funds violates the spirit of fiscal responsibility.

The lobby group also insists that the proposed changes are so fundamental that they would require a national referendum, something Parliament is unprepared for due to its failure to enact a referendum law—a requirement pending since the 2010 Constitution was passed.

With the High Court's orders now in effect, the Bill's future hangs in the balance. Legal observers say the case could redefine how Parliament handles constitutional amendments—especially where public money and civic rights intersect.