Finance Bill 2026 ‘rushed’ through Second Reading without our input – Opposition MPs

Opposition Members of Parliament in Kenya have voiced strong criticism regarding the expeditious passage of the Finance Bill 2026 through its Second Reading, alleging a lack of adequate input from all lawmakers. This development raises significant concerns about adherence to constitutional principles of public participation and the established legislative process. The accelerated pace, according to the opposition, curtailed meaningful engagement, potentially undermining the democratic legitimacy of the proposed tax legislation. This article examines the legal framework governing the legislative process in Kenya, particularly for money bills, and the constitutional imperative for public participation, drawing on relevant statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements to assess the implications of such a 'rushed' process.

The legislative landscape in Kenya is once again under scrutiny following allegations by opposition Members of Parliament that the Finance Bill 2026 was 'rushed' through its Second Reading, thereby circumventing comprehensive input from all elected representatives. This claim, if substantiated, points to a potential disregard for established parliamentary procedures and, more critically, the constitutional mandate for public participation in law-making. Finance Bills, being pivotal instruments that shape the nation's economic future through taxation and budgetary allocations, demand rigorous scrutiny and broad stakeholder engagement.

The expeditious advancement of such a critical piece of legislation without perceived adequate deliberation by all Members of Parliament and the public raises fundamental questions about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the legislative process. This article will delve into the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the enactment of money bills in Kenya, analyze the implications of the alleged procedural shortcuts, and consider the judicial precedents that underscore the importance of meaningful public participation in safeguarding democratic governance.

The legislative authority in Kenya is vested in Parliament, which comprises the National Assembly and the Senate, with the National Assembly holding exclusive power over money bills, including Finance Bills. Article 109(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, stipulates that Parliament exercises its legislative power through Bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President. Specifically, Article 114 provides that a money Bill may only be introduced in the National Assembly.

The process of enacting legislation in Kenya typically involves several stages: First Reading, referral to a relevant committee for detailed examination and public participation, Second Reading for debate on the Bill's principles, Committee of the Whole House for clause-by-clause consideration and amendments, and finally, Third Reading for a conclusive vote. A cornerstone of this process, enshrined in Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution, is the requirement for public participation and involvement in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees. This constitutional imperative ensures that laws reflect the will and needs of the people, fostering legitimacy and accountability.

The opposition's assertion that the Finance Bill 2026 was 'rushed' through its Second Reading without adequate input directly challenges the procedural fairness and constitutional compliance of the legislative process. The Second Reading is a critical stage where the general principles and policy objectives of a Bill are debated by the entire House. While Parliament's Standing Orders allow for flexibility, Standing Order 124(1) of the National Assembly states that, except with leave of the House, not more than one stage of a Bill may be taken at any one sitting. A rapid progression through stages could be perceived as an attempt to limit debate and scrutiny.

More significantly, the allegations touch upon the fundamental right to public participation. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, mandates Parliament to facilitate public participation in its legislative business. Kenyan courts have consistently emphasized that public participation must be genuine and substantial, not merely a cosmetic exercise. In *British American Tobacco Kenya, PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health and Others [2019] eKLR*, the Supreme Court underscored that a lack of public involvement can undermine public trust. Furthermore, the High Court in cases such as *Enock Aura* (citing the South African *Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly* case) has held that Parliament must engage with public views in good faith and provide reasons for departing from them.

Recent history with Finance Bills in Kenya illustrates the sensitivity surrounding their enactment. The Finance Act, 2023, and the Finance Bill, 2024, both faced significant public outcry and legal challenges, with courts often intervening to emphasize the necessity of meaningful public participation. For instance, the nullification of the Privatisation Act 2023 by Justice Chacha Mwita in September 2024 due to a lack of meaningful public participation highlights the judiciary's firm stance on this constitutional principle. The alleged rushing of the Finance Bill 2026 could therefore expose it to similar judicial challenges, potentially leading to its invalidation if procedural and substantive public participation requirements are found to have been breached. The role of the opposition, as a critical check and balance on the government, is to ensure that all voices are heard and due process is followed, especially for legislation with far-reaching economic impacts.

The concerns raised by opposition MPs regarding the 'rushed' Second Reading of the Finance Bill 2026 are not merely political posturing but highlight critical legal and constitutional issues. The integrity of Kenya's legislative process, particularly for money bills, hinges on strict adherence to parliamentary Standing Orders and, more importantly, the constitutional imperative for meaningful public participation. Any perception of bypassing these safeguards risks eroding public trust and inviting judicial intervention, as demonstrated by past legal challenges to similar legislation.

Practitioners should closely monitor the progression of the Finance Bill 2026, paying particular attention to whether the National Assembly addresses the concerns regarding limited input and public participation. Potential legal challenges based on Articles 10, 118, and 109 of the Constitution remain a significant risk if the process is perceived to be procedurally flawed or lacking in genuine public engagement. The judiciary has consistently upheld the principle that public participation is not a mere formality, and any legislation enacted without it risks being declared unconstitutional. This situation underscores the ongoing tension between legislative efficiency and the fundamental democratic principles of inclusivity and accountability in Kenya's law-making process.