High Court rules CDF unconstitutional, grants MPs two years to finish pending projects

The High Court has ruled that the National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF) is unconstitutional.

However, elected members of the National Assembly have been granted about two years to finish pending projects across their constituencies before the NG-CDF ceases to exist at midnight on June 30, 2026.

The High Court on Friday ruled that the kitty was unconstitutional after making a determination on nine issues following a petition filed by activist Wanjiru Gikonyo after the old CDF Act was declared unconstitutional.

The ruling was made by a three-judge bench, made up of Justices Kanyi Kimondo, Roselyne Aburili, and Mugure Thande.

On whether the CDF Act violates the structure of devolution, the court ruled that the Act violates the principles of devolution.

On whether the CDF Act violates the basic structure, it ruled that it does not violate the basic structure.

The High Court also found that the kitty led to duplication of activities and encroached into functions that the Constitution exclusively grants to county governments, and bore all the hallmarks of creating confusion in both levels of government.

It also established that the kitty violates the doctrine of separation of powers and runs afoul of the principle of separation of powers.

Additionally, the court ruled that members of the National Assembly have no powers to undertake development projects and that their role exclusively remains representation, legislation, and oversight.

The ruling by the High Court will, in less than two years, bring to a close the kitty that has been operational since 2003.

The petitioners, during their submission, argued that NG-CDF created a third layer of governance, praying it to be declared unconstitutional.

According to them, the involvement of MPs in the NG-CDF was harmful to the doctrine of separation of powers, as it affected the powers of the Executive as well as those of the Public Service Commission.

Parliament was represented by a battery of lawyers, who, after the ruling, said they would appeal the decision.