ABOLISHING CDF: WHO WANTS TO BE MP WITHOUT THE MONEY?

Opinion 𝐁𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐬 𝐖𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐞 

Following a recent ruling by a three-judge bench declaring the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF) unconstitutional, widespread concerns have arisen regarding the future of the fund, which is scheduled to cease operations by June 30, 2026. The court ruled that the NG-CDF violates the principle of separation of powers, as the management of development funds by MPs directly infringes on the mandate of the executive.

For over two decades, the CDF has played a critical role in shaping development at the constituency level. Some good MPs have used the fund to drive infrastructural improvements, build schools, health centers, and roads, and provide bursaries to needy students, particularly in marginalized regions. This has made the CDF’s contributions to grassroots development undeniable, as it allowed more direct and localized development compared to relying solely on the central government.

However, the fund has not been without controversy. Analysts point out that in some constituencies, instead of benefiting the public, CDF resources were misused to enrich MPs and their associates. Allegations of mismanagement have surfaced, with some MPs accused of channeling funds to projects that benefited them personally, diverting resources meant for public good toward private interests. Audits have exposed instances where projects were either incomplete or non-existent, despite allocated funds being spent.

Moreover, the fund has been criticized for being used by politicians to finance their election campaigns, giving them a significant advantage over opponents who may lack similar financial resources. This has skewed political competition and raised concerns about the fairness of elections in constituencies where incumbents are seen to have an unfair advantage through the use of CDF funds to solidify their political bases.

The introduction of devolution in 2013 further complicated matters. The existence of the CDF posed a challenge to the new governance structure, as MPs often pursued development projects independently of county governments, bypassing the roles assigned to governors and county assemblies. This created confusion, fragmentation, and sometimes duplication of development efforts, leading to inefficiencies and competition between MPs and county governments. In some cases, this tension resulted in underdevelopment or misallocation of resources at the grassroots level.

There is speculation that the executive branch might support the court’s decision as a strategic move to curb the growing influence of MPs. With independent access to CDF funds, MPs could operate autonomously and were not compelled to align with presidential agendas. The weakening or abolishment of CDF could reassert the executive's influence over MPs, ensuring they remain more answerable to the presidency and national government policies.

In response, MPs have vowed to contest the ruling, defending the CDF as a vital tool for grassroots development and empowerment. Many argue that the fund has been instrumental in addressing the unique needs of constituencies that might otherwise be neglected. Some are calling for amendments to the law or even a referendum to ensure the survival of the fund in some form. They remain determined to safeguard the fund and its legacy, emphasizing that it serves as a direct link between MPs and their constituents.

Should the CDF be permanently abolished, the relevance and appeal of the MP position may diminish. The potential abolition of the CDF could drastically reshape the political landscape, particularly when it comes to the competitiveness of MP seats. MPs would lose a crucial tool that has allowed them to engage directly in local development, a key aspect of their re-election campaigns.

For many years, MPs have used CDF resources to address constituency-specific issues like infrastructure and bursaries, which has been pivotal in their roles. Without the CDF, MPs would have less influence over development at the local level, diminishing their ability to deliver on campaign promises. This reduced capacity may make the MP position less attractive to politicians seeking to have a tangible impact on the ground.

Furthermore, with devolution placing more power in the hands of governors, MPs without control over development funds might become less relevant, particularly in rural and marginalized areas where development is desperately needed. This scenario could result in fewer candidates vying for MP seats, similar to the diminished interest seen in senatorial races, where limited development roles have reduced the position's appeal.

The potential loss of the CDF not only threatens the traditional role of MPs but may also lead to broader changes in the political landscape, making MP seats far less competitive than in previous years.

The author is a journalist who works at Kakamega County' Ministry of Sports,Youth  and culture as a communication officer.