The Senate building in Nairobi.
A bid by the Senate to expand its legislative and oversight powers has begun on a positive note, with the public throwing its weight behind the legislative proposal, even as some called for the Senate to be recognised as the Upper House.
The development comes as the Senate Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) on Monday commenced public participation on the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in Busia County on Monday.
Different residents backed the push to have the Senate involved in the vetting of State officers, as well as participating in the budget-making process.
The residents also lauded the establishment of the County Assembly Fund, saying the attendant financial autonomy will enable members of county assemblies to effectively oversee the county executives.
Godfrey Odongo from Nambale said vetting of State officers should be conducted by relevant joint committees of both Houses. He further observed that the Senate should be the Upper House.
Edgar Ouma from Samia echoed Mr Odongo's sentiments, adding that he also supports Senate-originating bills as well as expanding the roles of senators.
“We support both Houses being involved in money bills as well as vetting of State officers in order to avert monopoly by the National Assembly as well as corruption," said Caxson Obatsa, a university student.
Emmanuel Apalat said the inclusion of the Senate in the vetting of State officers, arguing that manipulation of the exercise will be minimised.
The Busia public forum is the first public participation on the Bill, co-sponsored by Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot and his Minority counterpart Stewart Madzayo, with more engagements lined up.
Read for the first time on August 7, 2025, before being committed to the Jlac, the proposed legislation is due for second reading on November 6, 2025.
Constitution of Kenya render
The Bill proposes a raft of changes to the Constitution to expand their legislative and oversight roles.
However, the push has split opinion among stakeholders, with some quarters saying the far-reaching changes may raise constitutional legal questions.
The Bill seeks to have the Senate also have the authority to approve the national budget, vet constitutional office holders and veto decisions made by the National Assembly.
It proposes granting the Senate power to originate any piece of legislation and participate in approving or vetting various State officers, as well as their removal from office.
Currently, the Senate’s role is largely limited to county matters, leaving many to view the House as underpowered. The proposed changes would significantly strengthen its role—mirroring aspects of the US Senate—and reshape Kenya’s legislative framework.
It also seeks to expand the Senate’s role in budget-making to have a direct role, in a proposal that the Senate says would ensure both Houses play an effective role in budget-making.
Vetting and approval of State officers, including cabinet secretaries, principal secretaries, ambassadors, among others, is currently a preserve of the National Assembly, except for a few instances like the vetting of the Inspector-General of Police and the Central Bank of Kenya Governor, where they jointly vet with their National Assembly colleagues.
Further, the Bill seeks to amend Article 115 of the Constitution to provide for the joint submission of a Bill passed by Parliament by the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament to the President for assent.
It also proposes to amend Article 109 of the Constitution to provide for the origination of any Bill in either House of Parliament, save for a Bill on raising national revenue, which may only originate in the National Assembly.
The Senate argues that the Bill, if passed and adopted, would grant both Houses equal power to initiate legislation, either through individual members or committees, which would enable the House to play a more proactive legislative role.
The Senate during a past session.
Allocation bills could start in the Senate, while appropriation bills could begin in the National Assembly—both subject to amendment and potential veto by the originating House.
The Constitution bars the Senate from handling money bills – legislation that primarily deals with financial matters such as taxation, public expenditure, or borrowing. Under the existing framework, only the National Assembly can introduce and process money bills.
“By eliminating barriers to introduction of Bills, the Bill supports diversity and improves the legislative mandate of both Houses,” the House argues.
However, the legislative proposal has been met with varying opinions with the County Assemblies Forum (CAF), an umbrella body of MCAs, through its chairperson, Seth Kamanza, arguing that the proposal to expand the Senate’s oversight to include revenue collected at the county level has been challenged by MCAs, saying the expansion threatens to encroach on the functions of county assemblies.
The MCAs also noted that the removal of the Speaker's concurrence mechanism under Article 110 and the expansion of bicameral veto powers may inadvertently heighten the risk of legislative deadlock.
Mr Kamanza urged caution and the development of complementary dispute-resolution mechanisms to safeguard legislative continuity.
“Without robust inter-chamber cooperation and political goodwill, these changes could paralyse the law-making process particularly in contentious budget cycles and undermine the efficient functioning of Parliament,” said Mr Kamanza.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) said the proposals in the Bill will end the recurring inter-cameral conflicts between the two Houses of Parliament to foster a more balanced, accountable and functional system of governance.
Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo during an interview in Karen, Nairobi on September 16, 2025.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo said the amendments will remove restrictions limiting the Senate to only county-related Bills, allowing most bills to originate in either House, promoting a more balanced legislative process.
Empowering the Senate to play a direct role in the budget-making process, particularly in relation to allocation of revenue, said Ms Odhiambo, will be critical in enhancing counties’ fiscal autonomy and ensuring equitable development.
“The proposed amendments, if enacted, have the potential to resolve long-standing jurisdictional disputes between the two Houses, enhance legislative efficiency and bolster principles of devolution,” said Ms Odhiambo.
However, the LSK said the Bill should provide a clear and exhaustive definition of what constitutes “special interests”.
They also threw caution on the use of super majority veto to resolve disagreements, saying it could lead to legislative gridlock on critical financial Bills.
“A mandatory mediation process would provide a structured platform for the two Houses to negotiate and find common ground, reducing the likelihood of a stalemate that could paralyse government operations,” she said.
For its part, the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA), however, has opposed the changes, seeking to have the status quo maintained to avoid duplication between the two Houses.
The Commission also says that some amendments on assigning the responsibility of approving or vetting various State officers to both Houses of Parliament should be deleted to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
“This Bill generally expands the mandate of the Senate in various matters such as legislation, oversight and in appointment of state officers. This in some instances as highlighted above may create a lot of bureaucracy and duplication of roles between the two Houses of Parliament,” said CRA chief executive officer Roble Nuno.
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) argued that while the Bill addresses genuine ambiguities in the current constitutional framework, it introduces new risks that should be considered carefully.
In its submission, IEA-Kenya said the similarity in the roles of the National Assembly and the Senate may heighten the likelihood of legislative stalemates, and the creation of additional funds and overlapping oversight mandates may weaken institutional independence and escalate administrative costs.
The Institution said that while the proposed approach to amend Article 110 of the Constitution to remove the speaker’s concurrence may ease past conflicts, the absence of a solid mediation mechanism risks leaving county interests unprotected and exposing devolution to unchecked dominance by the National Assembly.
“Retain Article 110 but amend it to eliminate past ambiguities rather than repealing it. A revised Article should provide a clear, binding definition of county-related Bills and establish a transparent dispute resolution process between the two Speakers or through a joint parliamentary mechanism.”
