Professor Makau Mutua, constitutional advisor to President William Ruto, has sparked discussion by questioning the effectiveness of public participation in Kenya’s governance.
In a statement posted on X, Mutua argued that the process, though constitutionally mandated, often fails to reflect the public’s true interests and is instead used as a justification for decisions made by elites.
Mutua described public participation as a “charade” and a “fiction of democracy,” asserting that courts frequently rely on it to block government policies they oppose.
He noted that while it may serve to educate some citizens, it is neither a plebiscite nor a scientific survey, and therefore cannot measure whether policies genuinely benefit the country.
Public participation is entrenched in Kenya’s 2010 Constitution and plays a key role in legislative, budgetary, and policy decisions.
Courts have increasingly cited inadequate public consultation to nullify government actions, including decisions on infrastructure projects, procurement, and county development plans.
This judicial oversight has created tensions between the Executive and the Judiciary, particularly on contentious or high-profile policy matters.
Mutua argued that public participation primarily serves as a “fig leaf” for elites to justify predetermined outcomes, rather than providing genuine guidance for policy formulation.
His remarks highlight ongoing debates about the balance between citizen involvement, institutional accountability, and executive discretion in Kenya’s governance framework.
Civil society groups and governance advocates have long defended public participation as essential for transparency and devolution.
It ensures that county governments and state agencies consider local needs and priorities in planning and implementing programs.