By: Grace Wanja
The battle over the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF) has escalated into a constitutional showdown, with the matter now headed to the Supreme Court. In a dramatic turn, respondents Wanjiru Gikonyo and Cornelius Oduor Opuot filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that upheld the legality of the NG-CDF Act, 2015. Their move signals the beginning of a high-stakes confrontation that could redefine the boundaries of public finance, devolution, and legislative authority in Kenya.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Justices Daniel Musinga, Francis Tuiyott, and A. O. Muchelule, had overturned a 2024 High Court ruling that declared the NG-CDF Act unconstitutional in its entirety. The appellate judges faulted the trial court for striking down the statute wholesale without conducting a sufficiently detailed constitutional analysis. They argued that the NG-CDF Act did not undermine devolution or violate the separation of powers, noting that the fund’s expenditure forms part of the national budget approved annually by Parliament.
Yet the ruling was not absolute. The Court of Appeal severed Section 43(9) of the Act, which tied the tenure of constituency fund managers to parliamentary terms, declaring it unconstitutional. This partial victory for the petitioners has emboldened them to press further, insisting that the entire statute offends the spirit of the Constitution. Their appeal to the Supreme Court now places Kenya’s highest judicial authority at the center of a debate that has simmered for years.
At stake is more than the legality of a fund. The NG-CDF, established in 2003 and later reconstituted under the 2015 Act, has long been a political lightning rod. Proponents hail it as a lifeline for grassroots development, enabling MPs to directly channel resources into schools, health centers, and community projects. Critics, however, argue that it distorts the constitutional architecture by blurring the lines between national and county functions, while entrenching patronage politics.
The High Court’s 2024 decision had electrified civil society, with activists celebrating what they saw as a reaffirmation of devolution. The ruling declared the NG-CDF Act unconstitutional, citing violations of public finance principles and the separation of powers. But the Court of Appeal’s reversal dampened those celebrations, emphasizing that courts must not invalidate legislation based on speculative harm. The judges invoked U.S. jurisprudence, notably U.S. v. Butler (1936), to underscore that courts are tasked with assessing constitutional compliance, not policy wisdom.
For Parliament, the appellate ruling was a vindication. The National Assembly had appealed the High Court’s decision, warning that striking down the NG-CDF would cripple development in constituencies. Lawmakers argued that the fund remains one of the few mechanisms through which rural communities directly benefit from national resources. Indeed, NG-CDF projects—from classroom construction to bursary schemes—have become politically indispensable, with MPs often judged by their ability to deliver through the fund.
But the Supreme Court appeal reopens old wounds. Civil society groups, including the respondents, contend that NG-CDF entrenches legislative overreach, allowing MPs to play executive roles in development planning and resource allocation. They argue that this undermines county governments, which are constitutionally mandated to handle local development. The petitioners insist that the fund perpetuates a culture of dependency and weakens accountability, as MPs wield disproportionate influence over resource distribution.
The broader political weight of the case cannot be ignored. Kenya’s 2010 Constitution was designed to dismantle centralized patronage and empower devolved units. The NG-CDF, critics say, is a relic of the old order, repackaged under new legislation but fundamentally at odds with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will therefore be more than a legal verdict—it will be a statement on whether Kenya’s governance architecture can withstand the pressures of political expediency.
Observers note that the case also touches on the delicate balance between judicial restraint and activism. The Court of Appeal emphasized caution, warning against striking down laws without clear constitutional violations. Yet the petitioners argue that the NG-CDF Act represents precisely such a violation, as it allows legislators to encroach upon executive and devolved functions. The Supreme Court must now navigate this tension, balancing the need for constitutional fidelity with the realities of Kenya’s development politics.
Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans remain caught in the crossfire. For many, NG-CDF projects are tangible—new classrooms, bursaries, and health facilities. Yet questions linger about sustainability, accountability, and whether such development should be driven by MPs rather than devolved governments. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine not only the fate of NG-CDF but also the trajectory of Kenya’s decentralization experiment.
As the notice of appeal sets the stage for hearings, the country braces for a landmark ruling. The Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether NG-CDF is a constitutional innovation or a constitutional aberration. Whatever the outcome, the decision will reverberate across Kenya’s political and legal landscape, shaping the contours of governance for years to come.
The battle lines are drawn. On one side, Parliament and its defenders argue for pragmatism and grassroots impact. On the other, civil society and reformists demand fidelity to constitutional principles. The Supreme Court now holds the scales, and its judgment will either entrench NG-CDF as a permanent fixture or consign it to history as a casualty of constitutional reform.