Civil Society Groups Condemn Disruption of Budget Forum, Vow to Keep Scrutinizing Government Spending

Civil society organisations in Kenya have vehemently condemned the violent disruption of a post-budget dialogue forum in Nairobi, labelling it a direct assault on democratic participation and constitutional freedoms. The incident, which saw alleged 'goons' storming the All Saints Cathedral meeting, highlights the ongoing tension between state accountability and civic space. This article examines the legal framework underpinning public participation and freedom of assembly in Kenya, particularly in budget scrutiny, and discusses the implications of such disruptions for the rule of law and democratic governance. It underscores the constitutional imperative for robust public engagement and the critical role of civil society in upholding transparency and accountability in public finance management.

On June 12, 2026, a post-budget dialogue forum at Nairobi's All Saints Cathedral was violently disrupted by individuals described by civil society organisations (CSOs) as 'state-hired goons'. The meeting, convened to scrutinise the government's 2026/27 national budget, brought together diverse stakeholders, including CSOs, faith-based organisations, private sector representatives, and members of the public. This brazen act of intimidation has been widely condemned by religious leaders, lawyers, and human rights groups, who view it as a grave affront to democratic participation and an attempt to silence critical voices on government spending.

The incident is not merely a matter of public disorder; it carries significant legal implications for Kenya's constitutional democracy. It directly challenges fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and the right to public participation in governance. The disruption underscores a worrying trend of shrinking civic space and the use of violence to suppress lawful civic engagement, raising serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability in public finance.

This article delves into the legal framework that protects public participation in budget processes and the right to peaceful assembly in Kenya. It analyses how the disruption contravenes these constitutional and statutory provisions, examines relevant judicial pronouncements, and discusses the broader implications for legal practitioners advising CSOs and advocating for democratic governance. Ultimately, it argues that such actions undermine the very foundations of Kenya's constitutional order and necessitate a robust defence of civic space.

Kenya's 2010 Constitution is lauded for its progressive Bill of Rights and its emphasis on national values and principles of governance, which include democracy, participation of the people, human dignity, human rights, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability. These principles are binding on all State organs, State officers, public officers, and all persons when applying or interpreting the Constitution, enacting or interpreting any law, or making or implementing public policy decisions. Specifically, Article 37 guarantees every person the right, peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions to public authorities. Complementing this, Article 33 protects freedom of expression, encompassing the freedom to seek, receive, or impart information or ideas.

Public participation is a cornerstone of Kenya's constitutional democracy, explicitly mandated in various provisions. Article 10(2)(a) lists 'participation of the people' as a national value. In the context of public finance, Article 201 mandates principles of public finance that include openness, accountability, and the promotion of public participation. Furthermore, Article 118(1)(b) and Article 119(1) require Parliament and County Assemblies to facilitate public participation and involvement in legislative and other business, including budget processes. The right to access information held by the state, guaranteed by Article 35, is also crucial for meaningful participation.

The Public Finance Management Act, 2012 (PFMA), operationalises these constitutional imperatives by detailing how national and county governments manage public finances, promoting transparency and accountability. The PFMA explicitly requires public participation in various stages of the budget process. For instance, Section 10(2) exhorts the Parliamentary Budget Office to observe the principle of public participation in budgetary matters, and Section 25(5) requires the Treasury to seek and take into account public views when preparing the Budget Policy Statement. This robust legal framework underscores the expectation that citizens, through CSOs and other forums, actively scrutinise and influence government spending decisions.

The violent disruption of the post-budget forum at All Saints Cathedral represents a direct assault on several fundamental constitutional rights and principles. Firstly, it infringes upon the right to peaceful assembly under Article 37. While this right is not absolute and requires assemblies to be 'peaceable and unarmed', the disruption by alleged 'goons' who reportedly stole valuables and caused chaos clearly falls outside any legitimate limitation. The incident also undermines the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 33, as it sought to silence critical discourse on the national budget.

More profoundly, the disruption constitutes a significant attack on the principle of public participation, which is a core national value under Article 10 and a specific requirement for public finance management under Article 201 and the PFMA, 2012. The purpose of the forum was precisely to allow citizens and CSOs to engage meaningfully with the 2026/27 budget, a process explicitly supported by law. Such acts of intimidation create a chilling effect, discouraging citizens from exercising their constitutional right to hold the government accountable, thereby reducing public participation to a mere 'tick-box' exercise rather than a genuine democratic engagement.

Kenyan courts have, in various instances, affirmed the importance of these rights, though challenges persist. The Public Order Act, 1950, which predates the 2010 Constitution, has sometimes been used to restrict assemblies, but recent judicial pronouncements have sought to align protest management with constitutional standards. For example, a recent judgment following the 2023 Azimio protests ordered the Inspector General of Police to develop regulations governing public order management and the use of force during demonstrations within 90 days, underscoring the need to protect the right to peaceful assembly and prevent excessive force. The police response to the All Saints Cathedral incident, including the arrest of two suspects and the launch of investigations, indicates a formal recognition of the illegality of the disruption, though CSOs have called for accountability for sponsors of such attacks.

Civil society organisations play an indispensable role in Kenya, acting as watchdogs, advocates, and facilitators of public engagement, particularly in areas like public finance management. Attacks on these groups, whether through physical disruption or accusations of funding unlawful behaviour, threaten the very fabric of democratic oversight. The incident at All Saints Cathedral highlights a persistent gap between Kenya's robust legal framework for public participation and its practical implementation, often hindered by political interference and insufficient engagement with civil society.

Comparative legal perspectives from other democracies often emphasise the state's positive obligation to protect peaceful assemblies and facilitate public participation. The failure to adequately protect such forums, or worse, the alleged involvement of state-sponsored elements, signals a regression from democratic norms. Legal remedies for such violations could include civil suits for damages, criminal prosecution of perpetrators and their sponsors, and judicial review applications to compel state organs to uphold constitutional duties regarding public participation and assembly.

The violent disruption of the post-budget dialogue forum in Nairobi is a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic space and the ongoing struggle to safeguard constitutional rights in Kenya. It represents a profound challenge to the principles of public participation, freedom of assembly, and transparency that are foundational to the 2010 Constitution. The condemnation from civil society, religious leaders, and legal professionals underscores the collective resolve to resist such intimidation and uphold the rule of law.

For legal practitioners, this incident highlights the critical need to actively defend civic space. This includes advising CSOs on their constitutional rights, exploring avenues for litigation against perpetrators and their sponsors, and advocating for stricter enforcement of laws protecting public participation and assembly. It also necessitates vigilant monitoring of government actions and judicial pronouncements concerning these rights. The commitment of civil society groups to continue scrutinising government spending, despite the threats, signals a resilient determination to ensure that the voice of the people remains central to Kenya's governance. Practitioners must remain at the forefront of this defence, ensuring that the constitutional promise of a participatory and accountable government is not undermined by acts of violence and intimidation.