By Paul Njenga
The ultimate obligation of economic policy is to improve the living standards of citizens. Roads, housing, infrastructure and economic growth matter, but they cannot justify violations of constitutional rights, disregard for the law or the misuse of public resources. Kenya must pursue development that improves lives, respects the Constitution and holds public power accountable.
Kenya needs development urgently. Millions of citizens want decent jobs, affordable food, accessible healthcare, quality education, adequate housing and relief from the rising cost of living. Young people want opportunities to earn a living, businesses need an environment in which they can grow, and families want the assurance that hard work will translate into a better future.
Government efforts to expand infrastructure, mobilise investment, improve public services and address these challenges deserve recognition where they produce demonstrable results. Governing a country facing unemployment, fiscal constraints, public debt and competing social demands is difficult. No responsible assessment of government should ignore genuine achievements or the complexity of the task.
But recognition of government’s development ambitions must not become an excuse for lowering the standards by which those ambitions are judged.
The fundamental test of economic policy is whether it improves the lives of citizens. The fundamental test of government is whether it pursues that objective lawfully, fairly and accountably.
Economic growth is a means, not an end in itself. Infrastructure is a means, not an end in itself. Tax collection, borrowing and public expenditure are instruments, not measures of success on their own. Their ultimate justification lies in the benefits they deliver to the people who finance the State through taxes, comply with its laws and entrust elected leaders with public authority.
My position is straightforward: development cannot be used to excuse violations of the Constitution, and the urgency of economic transformation cannot place government above the law. A development agenda that weakens constitutional safeguards, undermines independent institutions or disregards citizens’ rights risks damaging the very foundations on which sustainable prosperity depends.
Economic growth must translate into better living standards
The primary obligation of macroeconomic policy is to improve citizens’ welfare. Growth, investment, price stability, employment creation and sustainable public finances matter because they should generate better incomes, greater economic security, productive opportunities and improved access to essential services.
Economic performance must therefore be judged beyond headline growth rates, budget allocations and announcements of new projects. What matters is whether households can afford basic necessities, whether young people can find meaningful employment, whether businesses can expand, whether patients can access healthcare and whether public services are improving.
An economy may record growth while many citizens experience declining purchasing power, insecure livelihoods and diminishing opportunities. Public infrastructure may expand without generating sufficient employment or delivering value for money. Government may collect more revenue while households and businesses struggle under the burden of taxation.
These contradictions demand serious scrutiny. Growth that does not improve the welfare of citizens is an incomplete measure of economic success.
Government must demonstrate how its fiscal, monetary and development policies translate into tangible improvements in living standards. Public borrowing must support investments that deliver credible economic and social returns. Taxation must be accompanied by accountability for how revenue is used. Public expenditure must be prioritised according to need, affordability, efficiency and measurable benefits.
Fiscal discipline is important, but it should not be reduced to the collection of revenue, control of expenditure or servicing of debt in isolation from citizens’ welfare. Sustainable public finances should help create the conditions for lasting economic opportunity and reliable public services.
The same standard applies to development projects. The question is not merely how many houses are planned, how many kilometres of road are constructed or how much money is allocated. It is whether these investments address genuine needs, create economic value, reach intended beneficiaries and improve people’s lives.
Citizens are entitled to demand evidence that the sacrifices asked of them are producing results. Government, in turn, has a responsibility to explain its economic choices, disclose the costs and benefits of its programmes, and correct policies that fail to deliver their intended outcomes.
The rule of law is a condition for sustainable development
The rule of law is sometimes portrayed as an obstacle to the speed and decisiveness required for development. That is a false choice. A government can act decisively while respecting the Constitution. It can implement ambitious programmes while remaining accountable. It can pursue efficiency without treating legal constraints as inconveniences to be bypassed.
Kenya’s Constitution establishes the supremacy of the law and defines the limits within which public power must be exercised. Article 2 establishes constitutional supremacy, while Article 10 sets out national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, public participation, human dignity, social justice, equality, transparency and accountability.
These are not optional aspirations to be observed when convenient. They are binding foundations of public authority.
A government policy may have a worthy objective and still be unlawful in its design or implementation. A programme intended to provide affordable housing does not become constitutionally valid merely because housing is urgently needed. A healthcare reform does not become immune from judicial scrutiny because healthcare is essential. An infrastructure project cannot escape procurement, financial management or environmental obligations simply because it promises economic benefits.
The objective may be legitimate while the means require correction. Responsible government recognises that distinction and acts accordingly.
The rule of law also has a compelling economic purpose. Businesses need predictable regulations, enforceable contracts and secure property rights. Investors need confidence that public commitments will be honoured and disputes resolved impartially. Citizens need assurance that administrative decisions affecting their livelihoods will be lawful and fair.
Where rules are unpredictable or selectively applied, economic risks rise, investment decisions become more difficult and public confidence deteriorates. Where institutions are independent and legal obligations are respected, the conditions for productive investment and sustainable growth become stronger.
The rule of law is not a price Kenya must pay for development. It is one of the conditions that makes development durable, credible and beneficial to citizens.
Development objectives do not place government above the Constitution
The disputes surrounding the affordable housing levy illustrate why both policy ambition and constitutional scrutiny matter. The government has argued that the housing programme addresses a major national need and requires a sustainable financing framework. The courts have a constitutional responsibility to determine whether the legal instruments used to implement such policies comply with the law.
Both responsibilities are legitimate, but they are not interchangeable. Government formulates and implements policy within its constitutional mandate; the Judiciary independently determines legal disputes. Neither institution should usurp the role of the other.
When a court identifies a legal defect, the answer is not to dismiss judicial scrutiny as hostility to development. The answer is to use lawful remedies, correct defective legislation and improve implementation.
This principle applies regardless of the policy involved or the political popularity of the administration pursuing it. Constitutional limits matter most when government is under pressure to act quickly, when public resources are at stake and when powerful interests would prefer fewer constraints.
Respecting a court order does not require government to agree with every judicial decision. It requires government to pursue disagreement through lawful channels. Appeals, legislative amendments and constitutionally compliant policy revisions are available precisely because disputes are an inevitable part of democratic governance.
No development programme, however ambitious or popular, can legitimately exempt the State from the law.
That principle protects citizens against arbitrary power while giving government a more credible foundation on which to implement its agenda. It also ensures that public policy can be defended on its merits rather than sustained through the force of political authority.
Independent institutions are safeguards, not enemies of government
Kenya cannot build lasting prosperity by concentrating effective power in individuals or weakening institutions that are constitutionally mandated to scrutinise public decisions.
Parliament must legislate responsibly and exercise oversight. The Judiciary must adjudicate independently. The Auditor-General must scrutinise public expenditure. Oversight bodies must investigate matters within their mandates, and public officers must account for their decisions and use of public resources.
These institutions are not obstacles that government must overcome. They are essential safeguards against waste, abuse, arbitrary decision-making and the misuse of public money.
Oversight can expose poorly designed projects before more resources are committed. Legislative scrutiny can identify weaknesses in proposed laws. Independent audits can reveal financial irregularities. Judicial review can correct unlawful decisions and protect those affected by them.
Such scrutiny may delay a particular decision or require government to change course. That does not automatically make it counterproductive. The cost of correcting a problem early may be far lower than the economic and social consequences of allowing it to continue.
Government is right to demand efficient institutions, timely decisions and the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy. But reform must strengthen institutional capacity and accountability, not undermine independence to avoid scrutiny.
A strong government is not one that faces no meaningful checks. It is one capable of delivering results while operating within effective constitutional safeguards.
Efficiency must never become a justification for impunity
Kenya needs faster project implementation, more efficient public administration, timely payments to contractors, effective dispute resolution and better coordination between institutions. Delays can increase costs, discourage investment and deny citizens access to essential services.
But bypassing the law is not a sustainable solution to bureaucratic inefficiency. It can create new problems: questionable contracts, wasteful expenditure, disputes, stalled projects and diminished public confidence.
The answer is to make lawful processes work better. Procurement should be transparent and efficient. Public participation should take place early enough to improve policy design and identify foreseeable conflicts. Project appraisal should test affordability, economic returns and implementation capacity. Public expenditure should be monitored against clear objectives and independently verifiable outcomes.
The same principle applies to the Judiciary and oversight institutions. They should continually improve their capacity to resolve disputes promptly and discharge their mandates effectively. Constitutional independence must go hand in hand with institutional competence and accountability.
Speed alone is not progress. A project completed quickly but poorly designed, excessively expensive or legally defective may impose costs on citizens long after the original decision-makers have left office.
The proper measure is not how quickly government acts at any cost, but how effectively it delivers lasting public value within the law.
Citizens’ rights are not expendable in the pursuit of development
Development is supposed to improve human lives. It cannot credibly fulfil that purpose if citizens are expected to surrender their constitutional rights in exchange for public projects or economic promises.
Article 37 of the Constitution protects the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket and present petitions peacefully and unarmed. Article 47 protects the right to fair administrative action. These protections are part of the constitutional framework within which government must operate.
Citizens have a right to question taxation, challenge public policies, demand accountability and express peaceful disagreement with those in power. Such participation is not inherently anti-development. It is an essential means of identifying shortcomings, testing government claims and ensuring that policies reflect the public interest.
The State has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order and protect people from violence. But that responsibility must be discharged lawfully and proportionately, with a clear distinction between peaceful dissent and criminal conduct.
Allegations of unlawful force or other abuses should be investigated impartially, and established wrongdoing should attract appropriate accountability.
The government should not regard public criticism as a threat to its development agenda. Citizens who raise concerns about the cost of living, public debt, taxation, corruption or the implementation of projects are engaging in matters central to the country’s economic future.
Their concerns should be answered with evidence, transparency and practical solutions. Where criticism exposes weaknesses, government should be prepared to correct them.
Public trust is not a public-relations asset that can be replaced by announcements and publicity. It is built when citizens see that their concerns are heard, public money is accounted for and their rights are respected.
Government achievements deserve recognition, but scrutiny remains essential
A fair assessment of development must recognise genuine progress wherever it occurs. Government initiatives that expand access to housing, improve infrastructure, strengthen healthcare, create employment or make public services more effective should be acknowledged when supported by evidence.
It is equally reasonable for government to pursue reforms that improve efficiency, mobilise resources and address long-standing economic constraints. Citizens need a State that can act, make difficult choices and deliver on its commitments.
But recognition is not endorsement of every policy, and criticism is not rejection of every government objective.
A programme should be judged by its design, legality, financing, implementation and results. Its social benefits must be weighed against its costs, and its promises must be tested against what citizens actually experience.
Where a policy is sound but its legal framework is defective, the framework should be corrected. Where expenditure is inefficient, it should be restructured. Where procedures are unnecessarily slow, they should be improved. Where wrongdoing is established, those responsible should be held accountable.
This is not obstruction. It is responsible governance.
Indeed, constructive scrutiny can help government avoid costly mistakes, improve public support and achieve its objectives more effectively. A government confident in the merits of its policies should be willing to explain them, defend them with evidence and revise them when necessary.
The standard should be consistent: recognise measurable achievements, question weak results and insist on compliance with the Constitution. No administration should be judged by its promises alone, and no administration should be exempt from scrutiny because its stated objectives are popular.
The real test of leadership is what citizens gain
A President has a responsibility to set national priorities, mobilise resources, promote investment and advance economic transformation. Kenyans are entitled to expect tangible improvements from their elected government.
But leadership is measured by more than the number of projects announced, the force with which policies are defended or the speed at which decisions are made. It is measured by whether public power is exercised responsibly and whether the resulting policies improve citizens’ lives.
That requires ambition and restraint. It requires decisive action as well as respect for legal limits. It requires the willingness to defend policy choices and the humility to correct mistakes.
These obligations apply not only to the national executive but also to Parliament, county governments, public agencies and every institution entrusted with public resources.
The ultimate question is whether leadership leaves the country with stronger institutions, more productive economic opportunities, better public services and citizens whose rights and dignity are more secure.
A development legacy cannot be measured solely in concrete, kilometres of road, housing units or budgetary allocations. It must also be measured in jobs created, household welfare improved, public money protected, inequalities addressed and constitutional institutions strengthened.
Kenya must pursue development through the rule of law
Kenya needs affordable housing, reliable electricity, quality healthcare, modern schools, productive agriculture, efficient transport networks and thriving industries. It also needs sustainable public finances, transparent procurement, impartial justice, accountable institutions and respect for fundamental freedoms.
These are not competing national priorities. They are interdependent requirements of a prosperous and democratic State.
Macroeconomic policy must deliver more than aggregate growth. It must improve living standards. Development programmes must deliver more than physical infrastructure. They must produce measurable public benefits. Government must do more than exercise authority. It must demonstrate that public power is being used lawfully and in the public interest.
This demands practical action: prioritise investments with demonstrable social and economic returns; publish clear information on public expenditure and project performance; ensure taxation and borrowing decisions are transparent and sustainable; comply with court orders; protect independent oversight; improve the efficiency of public institutions; and investigate allegations of wrongdoing impartially.
These are not demands designed to frustrate government. They are the standards necessary to ensure that public resources and political authority serve the people.
Kenya does not have to choose between economic development, citizens’ rights and the rule of law. It must reject the false choice between them. Development that disregards the Constitution is neither sustainable nor acceptable, while constitutional governance that fails to deliver better living standards must also be challenged to perform.
The goal must be a State that is both effective and accountable: one that can build infrastructure, create opportunities and improve public services while respecting the rights of its citizens and the institutions that protect them.
The ultimate measure of national progress is whether Kenyans live better, more secure and more dignified lives. The ultimate test of government is whether it pursues that objective with integrity, competence and respect for the Constitution.
Development is the purpose; citizens’ welfare is the measure; and the rule of law is a non-negotiable foundation. Kenya must never sacrifice that foundation in pursuit of promises of progress. Without it, development risks becoming a temporary achievement built on institutional weakness. With it, economic progress has a stronger chance of becoming lasting national prosperity.
Paul Njenga is a researcher and finance and development expert.
