Is Public Participation in Kenya a Constitutional Formality or a Genuine Engagement?

By Joan Cherop Ngetich, Student, Kabarak University.

Image file: Gen Z protest after failed Public Participation- Design Joan Cherop Ngetich 

Public participation is a fundamental pillar of democracy, designed to ensure that citizens have a voice in governance, policymaking, and legislative processes. In Kenya, it is a constitutional requirement, embedded in various laws that mandate citizen involvement in decision-making.

However, while public participation appears to be a legal obligation, it often lacks meaningful engagement. Most of the time, it is reduced to just a bureaucratic formality, with little to no impact on final decisions. Despite countless public forums, memoranda, and consultations, the reality is that the opinions of citizens are rarely considered in key decisions, leading to growing disillusionment with the process.

One of the clearest demonstrations of the failure of public participation was the Finance Bill 2024. The government invited citizens to submit views on the bill, with various stakeholders presenting strong opposition, particularly regarding increased taxation. Kenyans, already struggling with a high cost of living, voiced their concerns through official channels, yet their input was largely ignored.

Parliament proceeded to pass the bill despite overwhelming public opposition. It was only after massive protests, led primarily by young Kenyans, that the government was forced to reconsider its stance. Does it require to loose a life, destroy property before public opinion is considered? The protests turned into a national movement, leading to President William Ruto ultimately refusing to sign the bill into law. 

If public participation had been taken seriously in the first place, the country could have avoided nationwide unrest, loss of lives, and destruction of property. This case highlighted a painful truth, the public’s voice only mattered when it became disruptive enough to force action. The failure to consider citizen feedback at the appropriate stage demonstrated that public participation in Kenya is often nothing more than a constitutional checkbox. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/26/kenya-finance-bill-why-it-sparked-mass-protests

Another area where public participation has been reduced to a mere formality is the vetting of high-ranking government officials. When key positions such as Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, or County Executive Committee Members need to be filled, the public is invited to submit opinions on nominees. These views often raise genuine concerns, such as past misconduct, incompetence, or conflicts of interest. However, in most cases, the vetting committees choose to overlook these public objections. Instead, political considerations take precedence, with nominees often getting the green light despite glaring red flags. This has resulted in individuals with controversial backgrounds assuming influential government roles, while public opinion is disregarded. A case in point was the vetting of members of the IEBC selection panel, where despite concerns about political interference, Parliament approved the nominees without significant changes. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001481141/mps-approve-iebc-selection-panel-nominees

Morara Kebaso during public participation on the impeachment of then Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua at Bomas. (Collins Oduor, Standard]

Public participation in the law-making process follows a similar pattern. While citizens are invited to give input on various bills, their views rarely alter the outcome, especially for government-backed legislation. Many times, public consultations appear to be a way of fulfilling a legal requirement rather than genuinely considering alternative perspectives. 

For instance, when the government proposes tax increases, new regulations, or constitutional amendments, public engagement forums are conducted. However, even when the majority of citizens oppose these proposals, they are often passed without significant revisions. It raises a critical question, why spend time and resources collecting public views if they will not be incorporated into the final decision?

The problem is further compounded by the political dynamics surrounding public participation. Many public engagement forums are dominated by interest groups that are either aligned with the government or have financial and political influence. As a result, the voices of ordinary citizens and especially those from marginalized communities, are drowned out by those who already have access to decision-makers. Additionally, most of these participation exercises are poorly structured, with little effort to create platforms that allow for meaningful, structured dialogue.

Image file// Public Participation Opinion Collection box- Joan Cherop Ngetich 

To make public participation more than just a constitutional obligation, Kenya must adopt several reforms. First, there needs to be greater transparency in how public input is considered. Government institutions should publish detailed reports outlining how citizen feedback influenced final decisions. If certain views are rejected, clear justifications should be provided. 

Secondly, an independent oversight body should be established to monitor and evaluate public participation processes, ensuring that they are not just ceremonial. This body should have the power to hold decision-makers accountable for dismissing public input without valid reasons.

Another key reform is to make public input binding in certain cases. For example, in the vetting of public officials, a mechanism should be put in place where serious objections from the public can lead to the disqualification of nominees, rather than leaving the final decision solely in the hands of politically motivated vetting panels. 

Similarly, for significant policy decisions, if a majority of public submissions oppose a proposal, there should be a legal requirement for the government to either revise it or provide a detailed justification for proceeding despite the objections.

Additionally, digital inclusion should be expanded to allow more Kenyans to engage in public participation without being physically present at forums. Many consultations are held in locations that are inaccessible to ordinary citizens, yet digital technology presents an opportunity for broader engagement. If well implemented, virtual platforms, interactive websites, and digital surveys could enable more voices to be heard and documented effectively.

Public participation should also be decentralized, with engagement forums being held in local communities rather than being limited to urban centers as it is a norm. This would ensure that citizens at the grassroots level, who are most affected by government policies are actively involved in decision-making processes. The government should also invest in public awareness campaigns to educate citizens on how they can effectively participate and demand accountability when their views are ignored.

If these changes are not implemented, public participation in Kenya will remain an empty democratic ritual. The current system serves to fulfill legal requirements rather than to genuinely involve citizens in governance. 

Unless authorities begin to respect and act on public views, Kenya will continue witnessing protests and social unrest as citizens find alternative ways to make their voices heard. A democracy thrives when the people’s voices are valued, not when they are collected for the sake of documentation. Public participation should not be a symbolic gesture but a meaningful engagement that influences real change.

Joan Cherop Ngetich is a student at Kabarak University. joancherop@kabarak.ac.ke

------ 

Send us your story: editonekenya@gmail.com