Kenya has long recognised the rights of persons with disabilities in law. The 2010 constitution guarantees access, dignity and inclusion for people living with disabilities.
But these legal promises remain largely aspirational. Their provisions are rarely translated into everyday realities. Many Kenyans with disabilities still face stigma, inaccessible environments, unequal education opportunities and limited access to employment.
Many schools remain exclusionary due to inaccessible physical infrastructure. This includes classrooms and latrines that lack ramps or hinder mobility for children with disabilities.
The fact that there are disputes over the number of Kenyans with disabilities is also telling. The 2019 census recorded 2.2% of the population – fewer than 1 million people – as having disabilities. This is far below the World Report on Disability’s estimates of an average of around 15%. This undercount reflects both cultural stigma and systemic gaps in how disability is understood and reported.
The new law expands the definition of disability to encompass a broader range of impairments. This ensures more individuals are recognised and protected under the law. The law also mandates accessibility across sectors such as education, employment, healthcare and public services, requiring reasonable accommodations and prohibiting discrimination.
In my view, the new law reflects a broader move from symbolic recognition to legal obligation. But passing a law is just the beginning. Implementation will be the real test.
In my research, and that of others, the question of why the 2003 law did little to shift everyday exclusion has been addressed. A few things were apparent.
First, employment quotas were suggested but never enforced. Discrimination in hiring and promotions was prohibited in theory, but was common in practice.
Second, there has been little support for caregivers.
Third, there was minimal access to assistive technologies (which are tools designed to help persons with disabilities perform tasks and improve their quality of life, such as mobility aids, communication devices and adaptive software).
Rather than disability being the problem, it is the lack of accommodation, inclusive policies and public understanding that creates exclusion. This is a core insight of the social model of disability , which views disability as arising from the interaction between individuals and an unaccommodating society. This perspective explains that people are disabled not by their bodies but by barriers in society – like stairs without ramps or employers who won’t adapt.
What the new law promises
Workplace inclusion: public bodies must now ensure that at least 5% of jobs are held by persons with disabilities. This provision, although previously suggested, now comes with clearer oversight requirements. Private employers are both mandated and incentivised to create inclusive workplaces. Reasonable accommodations, such as accessible workstations or flexible hours, can be counted as deductible expenses.Access to public services and spaces: the law requires that buildings, roads and services be made accessible. Hospitals must have trained sign language interpreters. Schools must adapt their admission criteria, curricula and facilities to include learners with disabilities. These requirements signal a move away from treating accessibility as optional or charitable.Tax relief and registration reforms: caregivers can now qualify for tax exemptions. Additionally, persons with long-term disabilities now receive permanent registration, ending the need for repeated reassessments – a process many found tedious, involving hospital visits, missing forms, long delays and limited assessment centres .Stronger institutional framework: the National Council for Persons with Disabilities has been given more robust powers, including enforcement, monitoring and management of disability-related funding. The law also recommends the use of affirming and respectful language in public communication – a subtle but essential step in reducing stigma.
The law incorporates disability considerations into sector-specific practices. For example, the law requires justice sector actors to consider disability when arresting, detaining or trying someone.
The government must act swiftly to implement supporting regulations. Funding is needed to retrofit public buildings, hire staff to support individuals with disabilities, and subsidise assistive devices. Without proper budgeting, the law risks becoming another unfulfilled promise.
Employers and institutions must do more than comply: they must transform their attitudes. Disability inclusion should be built into human resources practices, school policies and service design. Training will be key.
Finally, persons with disabilities must be central to the law’s implementation. Inclusion must be driven by those who live the reality of exclusion. Their insights are essential to making services responsive and respectful.
The 2025 Act is an important step. But if it is not backed by funding, political will and public education, its potential will remain unrealised.
The real question is not whether the law is good enough, but whether Kenya’s institutions, communities and leaders are prepared to make it work for those it was designed to serve.
