In the shifting landscape of Kenyan governance, one debate continues to resurface sometimes quietly, sometimes loudly: Are Members of Parliament (MPs) meant to oversee or implement development? It is a question that cuts deep into the roots of accountability, democracy, and the future governance in Kenya.
The answer may appear straightforward on paper, but in practice, it is one of the thorniest issues in our public administration.
THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 a transformative charter aimed at creating checks and balances places Members of Parliament in a legislative, representative and oversight role.
Article 95 assigns the National Assembly the mandate to make laws, represent and exercise oversight over national government organs.
Nowhere does it say that MPs are development implementers.
And yet, across the country, MPs are seen launching boreholes, commissioning classrooms, distributing bursaries, and building roads. How did we arrive here?
ENTER THE CDF CONFUSION
The National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF) is the main culprit in muddying the waters.
Though it was created with noble intentions to channel development funds directly to constituencies it has inadvertently turned legislators into quasi-executives, drawing them into a realm they were never designed to inhabit.
Rather than sticking to legislation, representation and oversight, MPs now plan, implement, and commission projects.
In many cases, they sit on implementation committees or appoint cronies to manage the funds.
They effectively become judge, jury, and executioner planning projects, allocating funds, and “overseeing” their own implementation.
This creates a clear conflict of interest, breeding impunity and weakening transparency.
OVERSIGHT BECOMES COMPROMISED
Once an MP becomes the face of a project, who holds them accountable if it fails or collapses? Certainly not their own office.
In some constituencies, MPs use the CDF to reward political allies, punish opponents, or create a parallel structure to county governments.
This often leads to duplication of roles, waste of public resources, and undermining of devolution, a system that was designed to bring development closer to the people through county governments.
Ironically, the more MPs act like implementers, the less effective they become at what they are actually elected to do and particularly on their oversight role.
THE POLITICAL COST OF TRUTH
To challenge this culture is to risk political alienation.
MPs who focus on pure oversight, representation and legislation are dismissed by constituents as “inactive” or “invisible.”
Development has been equated with physical presence on the ground and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, not with crafting robust policy or holding ministries to account.
This mindset feeds into a broken political economy where visibility beats integrity, and projects are preferred to process.
It is not just a governance crisis but a societal one.
TIME FOR A RESET
If we are serious about reforming governance in Kenya, we must first start by drawing a hard, visible line between oversight and implementation. This means:
1. Reforming the CDF model to reduce direct MP involvement in implementation.
2. Empowering county governments to be the exclusive implementers of local development.
3. Educating citizens on the constitutional roles of their representatives.
4. Incentivising performance in lawmaking, representation and oversight, not just project delivery.
Until we fix this confusion, MPs will remain conflicted and so will Kenya’s development trajectory.
CONCLUSION
Kenya’s MPs are not implementers. They are watchdogs, not workhorses.
Their job is to make laws, represent the people, and hold the executive to account. Anything else is a detour and detours always cost us more in the end.
It’s time we put each arm of government in its rightful place and returned Parliament to its noble constitutional role.
The writer is the Deputy Speaker, Garissa County Assembly and MCA-Iftin Ward.
