Constitutional change? Mudavadi's proposal sparking fierce divisions

This week, as Kenya approaches the midpoint of President William Ruto’s first term, a heated debate has erupted over Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi’s proposal to hold a constitutional referendum concurrently with the 2027 General Election.

This idea, originating from one of the highest offices in government, has quickly polarised public opinion, raising questions about timing, motives, and potential impacts on the nation’s democratic framework.

Mudavadi, who also serves as Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs and ranks third in the government’s hierarchy, has framed the referendum as both a practical necessity and an opportunity for progressive reforms. In interviews and public statements throughout late December 2025, he argued that combining the exercises would resolve longstanding constitutional issues efficiently, save costs, and set a democratic precedent in Africa.

However, critics have swiftly labelled it a diversionary tactic aimed at entrenching power or creating new political offices amid growing discontent with the administration’s performance.

Divided opinions

Public opinion remains sharply divided even as the proposal gains traction. Supporters, including Chama Cha Kazi party leader Moses Kuria, see it as a chance to address gaps in the 2010 Constitution after 15 years, calling for a “seventh ballot” in 2027 to confront governance, inclusivity, and devolution challenges.

They also see potential to resolve contentious matters such as the two-thirds gender rule and funding mechanisms for development.

On the opposing side, former National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi has vehemently dismissed the proposal as an attempt by the government to “excuse its failures.”

Muturi described it as “people trying to be clever by a small inch,” arguing that no constitutional amendment can absolve the administration of unfulfilled promises, rampant corruption allegations, and the escalating cost of living.

Muturi questioned the sudden emergence of Mudavadi’s idea, suggesting it aims to confuse voters during the 2027 campaigns and shift focus from pressing economic issues to the Constitution. “This is a red herring, a diversionary tactic. We cannot amend the Constitution to excuse this administration’s shortcomings,” he stated emphatically.

He specifically critiqued proposals to formalise the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition, noting that Kenya operates under a presidential system, not a parliamentary one, where such terminology typically applies.

Article 108 already provides for majority and minority leaders, and Muturi suggested minor adjustments, such as designating the presidential runner-up as minority leader, could be handled through ordinary parliamentary processes without a referendum.

“I have long advised that if they want to amend this, it could be done under Article 108. The minority leader should simply be the person who was number two in a presidential election. This does not require a parliamentary change or a referendum; it is a minor matter that Parliament can handle directly,” he explained.

As a former Attorney General, Muturi also condemned suggestions for new funds, such as a Ward Development Fund or a Senate Oversight Fund akin to the Constituency Development Fund (CDF).

He referenced a 2022 Supreme Court ruling emphasising the separation of powers, arguing that entrenching such funds in the Constitution would still violate this principle by turning legislators into project implementers.

“Legislatures worldwide perform oversight without dedicated funds; it’s part of their salaried duties under the Constitution,” he explained.

Political analyst Barrack Muluka echoed these concerns, calling the proposal an “election ploy” designed to dangle new offices as incentives for political alliances. He warned that concurrently filling newly created positions could manipulate voter dynamics, turning the referendum into a tool for sharing power rather than genuine reform. 

“That would be a political trick. There is no value in it for any reason. They cannot use a referendum to extend term limits because Kenyans will refuse and we know that. They will keep trying, but will not succeed. The mood of the country is not something to be taken for granted,” he said.

Senior counsel Kivutha Kibwana and Paul Muite linked the idea to rejected BBI structures, such as the Prime Minister and deputy roles. Muite suggested a referendum under Article 1 to invoke popular sovereignty and potentially dissolve Parliament and the presidency prematurely.

Youth group Taifa Mpya rejected the proposal outright, positioning young Kenyans as defenders of the 2010 Constitution’s gains in democracy, human rights, and rule of law. Convener Mavin Mabonga stressed implementing existing laws rather than amending them.

Without valid data, Mudavadi argued, boundaries cannot be redrawn, potentially nullifying the elections and breaking the five-year cycle tradition. Population growth has strained the fixed 290 constituencies under Article 89, disadvantaging high-growth areas while protecting under-populated ones.

Beyond legal imperatives, Mudavadi cited the National Dialogue Committee (Nadco) report as a key anchor.

Issues, such as entrenching the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF) to shield bursaries from court challenges, introducing a Senate Oversight Fund, and creating a Ward Development Fund for grassroots projects, could be resolved via referendum.

He also advocated for formalising a Prime Minister’s office and Leader of the Official Opposition for regional inclusivity, alongside fully implementing the two-thirds gender rule.

Proponents,  such as Kisumu Senator Prof Tom Ojiend,a highlighted existing legal frameworks, such as the Referendum Act, allowing cost-effective concurrent processes. Mudavadi downplayed logistical concerns, noting Kenyans’ experience handling multiple ballots, and argued that well-crafted questions would enable informed decisions.

However, senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi cautioned that amendments creating new offices are historically unpopular and could unify opposition forces, providing momentum against incumbents. Elections, he noted, are won or lost on performance records, making constitutional changes a risky “wild card.”

Referendum warning

As of late December 2025, the proposal remains under discussion, with Mudavadi urging nationwide conversations starting in 2026. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) challenges, including delayed reconstitution and boundary uncertainties, underscore the complexities.

Mudavadi has explained the need for a referendum, saying: “We can use the 2027 election as the first example to resolve issues that have never been addressed, well-crafted into sensible referendum questions to amend our 2010 Constitution.”

He described 2027 as a “referendum moment,” warning: “We are staring at a massive legal crisis where the 2027 election could be nullified before it begins. Our Constitution demands boundary reviews every eight to 12 years. The deadline was March 6, 2024. We have passed it.”

Mudavadi said Nadco identified issues that only Kenyans can resolve via referendum, including entrenching NG-CDF and introducing a Senate Oversight Fund and Ward Development Fund to ensure resources for water points and community halls reach the grassroots.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that only a fully constituted IEBC can manage these functions. This referendum push comes amid broader political realignments, including Mt Kenya dynamics, opposition strategies, and calls for accountability.

As Mudavadi positions it as a “legal necessity” to safeguard democracy, opponents view it as a potential threat to the same. The coming months will likely see intensified civic education, legal challenges, and parliamentary scrutiny, shaping Kenya’s path toward its next electoral milestone.

Reporting by Irene Githinji, Benard Sanga and Brian Kisanji