The Constituency Development Fund (CDF), a multibillion-shilling kitty that has been at the heart of Kenya’s political landscape since 2003, continues to be a source of contention between Members of Parliament (MPs), the judiciary, and critics who argue that it violates the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Despite repeated court rulings declaring the fund unconstitutional and calls for its management to be transferred to county governments, MPs have steadfastly held on to the CDF, citing its tangible benefits for their constituents.
The CDF was introduced to address the development gap in constituencies by channeling resources directly to local areas. It is intended to fund various projects, with education and security among the top priorities. Over the years, however, it has become clear that the fund is as much a tool for political influence as it is for development. Lawmakers have used it to endear themselves to voters, delivering tangible benefits like school bursaries, infrastructure projects, and security improvements. The CDF has significantly impacted local development, funding the construction of new schools, classrooms, and security stations.
The current National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF), which succeeded the CDF in 2013, allocates approximately Sh53.53 billion annually to constituencies, a sum equal to 2.5% of the national government’s sharable revenue. Much of this funding goes towards bursaries for needy students, with around Sh15 billion dedicated to supporting 1.2 million disadvantaged students annually. The fund has also facilitated the establishment of over 3,000 new schools and the construction of 26,452 classrooms, with an emphasis on inclusivity through the creation of special needs schools.
Despite these achievements, the political benefits tied to the CDF cannot be overstated. MPs have used the fund as a way to strengthen their political positions, often at the expense of the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The judiciary has repeatedly pointed out that the fund violates the Constitution by allowing lawmakers to control resources meant for executive functions. This clash came to a head in September 2024 when a three-judge bench of the High Court declared the NG-CDF Act of 2015 unconstitutional, citing a breach of the separation of powers. The court ruled that MPs should not be involved in the management of development funds, a responsibility constitutionally vested in the executive.
However, MPs remain unbowed. Kasipul MP Ongondo Were, for instance, declared that the CDF will not be abolished, stating that they were prepared to enshrine it in the Constitution. Others like Dagoretti North MP Beatrice Elachi have defended the fund, highlighting its transformative impact on local communities and insisting that it continues to serve the public good.
Political analysts argue that MPs’ reluctance to give up control over the CDF stems from the immense political leverage it provides. Control over such a large sum of money enables MPs to act as gatekeepers of development in their constituencies, solidifying their support base and outmaneuvering political opponents. Governance expert Javas Bigambo points out that the fund has been used not just for public benefit but for personal political gain, as MPs use it to build reputations as providers of resources.
Despite ongoing misuse of the fund, highlighted by audit reports from the Auditor General, critics argue that MPs are obstructing the delivery of public services by holding on to the CDF. Nominated Senator Tabitha Mutinda has called for the abolition of the fund, advocating for the decentralization of development control to county governments.
With the ongoing court battles over the Road Maintenance Levy Fund and a looming deadline for the cessation of the NG-CDF in 2026, MPs are pushing for amendments to the Constitution to legally entrench the fund. This is seen as a last-ditch effort to preserve their political influence and the financial power that comes with it. However, as the debate over the future of the CDF continues, it is clear that the battle is about more than just development it is about control, political survival, and the protection of vested interests.
As Kenya moves forward, the question remains: will MPs relinquish their grip on the CDF in favor of a more constitutionally aligned model of governance, or will they continue to use it as a political weapon, disregarding the courts and the constitutional order? The answer may reshape Kenya’s political landscape in the years to come.
