SAM'S SENSE: Parliament - Power to greed

Indeed, the Constitution allows for amendments—so long as the bill follows the laid-down procedure.

And this time, it did.

An impressive 304 Members of the National Assembly turned up for the second reading. 298 stayed to pass the bill at the third reading—meeting the two-thirds constitutional threshold at both stages.

You’ve got to admire the unity and focus. Parliament stuck to its mission. They even conducted public participation—which, we’re told, had a 98% approval rating.

But wait —was Parliament doing this for the people… or for itself?

To answer that, let’s unpack what NG-CDF has become.

The Constituency Development Fund has been around for 22 years. It began in 2004 at just 1.2 billion shillings—Ksh.6 million per constituency. In 2025, it now commands over 58 billion, with each constituency receiving at least Ksh.160 million, every year.

No doubt, it has transformed many parts of the country.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: NG-CDF has also become a platform for MPs to posture in their constituencies. Despite reforms meant to reduce their grip, they remain the de facto directors of the fund.

How many times have you seen an MP preside over a bursary distribution event? Yet, bursaries are wired directly to schools. A cheque goes to school X with a list of sponsored students. No need for a crowd or a camera.

But the MP needs the ceremony. The optics.

You see, 40% of NG-CDF funds go to education— officially classified as development expenditure, even though it's a recurring cost. And MPs use that visibility to build political capital.

So, why fight so hard for this fund?

It’s not just about helping the people—it’s about winning them over. It’s about votes. About photo sessions with smiling MPs holding up dummy cheques for the cameras.

Photo ops. Political branding.

Ask yourself: Should the Ministry of Education hold events to “hand over” capitation to public schools? Should the Social Health Authority hold glamorous ceremonies to reimburse hospitals?

Back to Parliament.

Notice the stark contrast: 300 MPs showed up to push this amendment through. But where were they when the National Treasury CS presented the national budget—which also included 58 billion for NG-CDF?

Selective attendance speaks volumes.

Now, on top of NG-CDF, MPs have proposed a Senate Oversight Fund. Some senators are already threatening to reject it.

But let’s pause and ask: why create a fund outside Parliament’s current budget?

In the 2025/2026 financial year, Parliament has been allocated over 47 billion shillings—which includes money for the Senate. So, why peg the Senate Oversight Fund on the national government share of revenue?

what happens if the executive delays the money? Does that mean the Senate can’t do its job?

Let’s not forget the Constitution gives Parliament three roles:

Representation.

Legislation.

Oversight.

Execution? That’s not one of them.

Courts have consistently ruled: MPs should not be involved in executing government programmes. Constituencies are not service delivery units. They are electoral units—for choosing MPs and the President.

And yet, Parliament often operates like a private club—more concerned with self-preservation than public service. Inward-looking, when it should be outward-facing. For the people.

Passing a constitutional amendment just to legitimize handouts is not progress. Charity is noble—but distributing taxpayers’ money isn’t charity. 

MPs must focus on what truly matters to the people—not just what secures their re-election.

That’s my sense tonight.