Five per cent is not a favour: Kenya must open the doors of county power to persons with disabilities

By Mr. Fredrick Kipchumba Chelimo – PWD

Email; [email protected]

“Nothing about us without us must become more than a slogan. It must be reflected in the laws we enact, the leaders we elect and the decisions that shape our lives.”

Kenya’s democracy has an unfinished obligation to millions of its citizens: ensuring that persons with disabilities are not merely counted during elections, consulted when convenient or remembered during political campaigns, but are represented where public decisions are made and resources are allocated. Equally important, they must be able to access the rights, services and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution and the law without begging, pleading or depending on the goodwill of individual officials.

The County Governments Election Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, sponsored by Senator Crystal Asige, offers an important opportunity to address this historical exclusion. Its proposed reforms seek to amend the Elections Act and the County Governments Act to strengthen the representation of persons with disabilities in county assemblies, including through a minimum five per cent representation mechanism. The National Assembly’s invitation dated 5 October 2026 for stakeholder views presents another important opportunity to influence the Bill’s eventual outcome.

For persons with disabilities, this is not an abstract legal debate. It is about power, dignity, public money, access to services and the right to participate meaningfully in the governance of our country. Above all, it is about transforming constitutional promises into everyday realities.

The cost of exclusion is measured in lives, not statistics

County governments make decisions that directly affect the daily experiences of persons with disabilities. They determine priorities for healthcare, vocational training, accessible infrastructure, agricultural support, bursaries, enterprise development and other essential services. County assemblies approve budgets, scrutinise expenditure and hold county executives accountable. Yet when persons with disabilities are absent from these institutions, decisions affecting them may be made without sufficient understanding of their lived realities.

Consider a county procuring assistive devices without adequately consulting intended beneficiaries. A wheelchair may be purchased without considering the user’s mobility requirements, while someone who needs a prosthesis, hearing equipment or a white cane remains overlooked. Funds may be allocated to disability programmes, yet the people most in need may have little influence over how those resources are distributed.

The problem is not necessarily a lack of goodwill among individual officials. It is that goodwill alone cannot replace institutionalised participation, clear legal obligations and accountable representation.

Article 54(2) of the Constitution requires the State to ensure that persons with disabilities constitute at least five per cent of the members of the public in elective and appointive bodies. Article 177(1)(c) provides for representation of marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities and youth, in county assemblies as prescribed by legislation. The proposed amendments seek to strengthen the practical implementation of these constitutional commitments.

Five per cent should therefore not be interpreted as a generous political concession. It is a mechanism for advancing constitutional inclusion. The same principle applies to disability rights generally: what the Constitution and legislation guarantee must not become a favour that PWDs have to negotiate for repeatedly.

For PWDs in Uasin Gishu County, the proposed reform carries particular significance. Our county has 30 wards, each with people whose disability-related needs differ according to their circumstances, location, livelihoods and access to services. A person with a mobility impairment in a rural ward may face barriers accessing health facilities or public transport. A deaf young person may struggle to access information or vocational training. A woman with a disability may encounter additional obstacles in accessing economic opportunities and political leadership.

These are not peripheral issues. They belong at the centre of county planning and accountability. Effective representation would give PWDs a stronger opportunity to influence county legislation, scrutinise disability-related expenditure, question exclusionary procurement practices and advocate for equitable access to public services. It could also strengthen the relationship between grassroots disability organisations and county institutions.

Crucially, this representation should help ensure that disability-related rights, services and opportunities provided for under the Constitution and the law reach their intended beneficiaries. PWDs should not have to demonstrate exceptional suffering, organise demonstrations, plead with officials or cultivate political connections to access lawful entitlements. Public institutions must fulfil their obligations as a matter of duty, not charity.

Representation must therefore be meaningful. It should recognise the diversity of disabilities, promote the participation of women with disabilities, encourage credible leadership and ensure that those occupying representative positions remain accountable to the people they serve. A seat occupied by a person with a disability is important, but the ultimate test is whether that representative advances the interests of the wider disability community.

It is appropriate to express sincere and generous appreciation to Senator Crystal Asige for sponsoring and advancing this important legislative initiative. Her work has helped bring disability representation into the national legislative conversation in a practical and consequential way. By pursuing a legal solution to a problem that has persisted through successive electoral cycles, she has helped move the debate beyond sympathy and political promises towards institutional reform.

Such legislative leadership deserves recognition. Disability inclusion cannot be achieved by persons with disabilities acting alone. It requires allies within Parliament and government who are prepared to listen, understand structural exclusion and use their positions to advance corrective measures.

We equally appreciate the senators who supported the Bill, the parliamentary officers facilitating its consideration and the institutions invited to submit views. We call upon members of the National Assembly to approach the proposal with the seriousness it deserves and to strengthen it where necessary. Our gratitude must, however, be accompanied by responsible engagement. We must contribute evidence, identify practical implementation challenges and help ensure that the final law delivers the intended benefits.

Kenya’s political class has an opportunity to demonstrate that disability inclusion is a national democratic principle rather than a campaign slogan. Political parties should develop transparent nomination procedures, identify qualified candidates with disabilities and avoid practices that reduce affirmative-action provisions to token gestures. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and other relevant institutions should support clear, lawful and consistent implementation of the eventual legislation.

The National Assembly should scrutinise the Bill carefully, protect its central purpose and clarify how representation is to be calculated and secured. Persons with disabilities and their representative organisations must be afforded accessible and meaningful opportunities to contribute. We also call upon governors, senators, Members of Parliament, members of county assemblies and county administrators of goodwill to support the broader objective: ensuring that persons with disabilities participate in the decisions that determine their future.

Their responsibility extends beyond appointing representatives or attending disability events. It includes ensuring that public institutions deliver the rights, services, reasonable accommodation and opportunities required by law. A PWD seeking accessible healthcare, an assistive device, education, employment or an economic empowerment opportunity should encounter a functioning public service, not an endless chain of appeals for assistance.

PWDs in Uasin Gishu must organise across all 30 wards, gather views from different disability groups, develop a common memorandum and engage their elected leaders. We should also strengthen ward-to-sub-county-to-county consultation structures to ensure that grassroots priorities inform our advocacy.

We must reject internal divisions, political manipulation and the assumption that representation is the entitlement of a select few. Our objective should be a system that produces capable leaders, reflects disability diversity and answers to the community. The Bill remains subject to the legislative process until Parliament completes the required stages and the resulting law takes effect. We must therefore maintain constructive pressure, verify its progress and prepare to participate in implementation.

Kenya does not need to choose between political effectiveness and disability inclusion. A more representative democracy is capable of achieving both. Nor should the enjoyment of disability rights depend on an individual’s ability to plead, protest or find a well-connected benefactor. Let this moment mark a shift from exclusion to participation, from political promises to enforceable commitments, and from being discussed by others to helping shape our own future. Let it also mark the transition from begging for rights to claiming them lawfully, confidently and with dignity.

Five per cent is not a favour to persons with disabilities. It is a call to make constitutional inclusion real and to ensure that the rights already guaranteed by our laws are enjoyed without begging.

The post Five per cent is not a favour: Kenya must open the doors of county power to persons with disabilities appeared first on The Mt Kenya Times.