By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 29 December 2025 - Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi has publicly rebuked former Chief Justice David Maraga over his criticism of plans to hold a constitutional referendum alongside the 2027 general election, escalating an increasingly visible debate over the future of Kenya’s constitutional order.
Speaking in Eldoret on Monday, Mudavadi dismissed Maraga’s objections as inconsistent, arguing that the former Chief Justice is opposing reforms meant to address constitutional gaps he himself identified while serving on the Bench.
Mudavadi insisted that the government remains committed to amending the Constitution through a referendum scheduled to coincide with the August 2027 elections.
At the centre of the dispute is the long-standing failure to implement the Constitution’s two-thirds gender principle, which requires that no more than two-thirds of members of elective or appointive bodies be of the same gender.
Successive parliaments have failed to enact the necessary legislation, a situation that courts — including those presided over by Maraga — have previously ruled renders Parliament unconstitutional.
Mudavadi framed the proposed referendum as a corrective mechanism rather than a political manoeuvre, portraying it as a necessary step to stabilise constitutional governance.
In linking Maraga’s past judicial pronouncements to the current reform agenda, the Prime Cabinet Secretary sought to undercut the former Chief Justice’s Maraga moral authority to challenge the process.
The clash reflects deeper tensions between Kenya’s political leadership and sections of the judiciary-turned-civil society actors who have positioned themselves as guardians of constitutionalism.
Maraga, since retiring from the judiciary, has emerged as a vocal critic of political interference in constitutional matters, warning against reforms that could dilute checks and balances or entrench elite interests.
More from Kenya
Holding a referendum concurrently with a general election is itself politically significant.
Proponents argue it would save public resources and boost voter turnout, while critics fear it could politicise constitutional questions, overwhelm voters, and reduce space for informed public debate.
Mudavadi’s firm stance signals that the government is prepared to push ahead despite such concerns.
Politically, the gender principle offers a unifying justification for constitutional change, given its broad public sympathy and the embarrassment it has caused Kenya internationally.
However, analysts caution that once the Constitution is opened for amendment, additional proposals — some potentially contentious — could be introduced, reshaping the political landscape ahead of the 2027 polls.
Mudavadi’s comments also reveal an effort by the Executive to reclaim the constitutional reform narrative from figures like Maraga, whose judicial legacy carries weight with reform-minded voters.
By portraying opposition as contradictory rather than principled, the government appears keen to neutralise legal critiques before the referendum debate gains momentum.
As Kenya edges closer to the 2027 election cycle, the confrontation between political power and former judicial authority underscores a familiar dilemma of whether constitutional reform can be pursued as a technical fix to governance gaps, or whether it will once again become a proxy battlefield for broader political struggles.
