Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna voiced strong opposition to the Affordable Housing Regulations on September 25, 2025, during Senate proceedings, arguing that the regulations suffer from procedural illegality and potential political interference.

His critique, focused on both the legal compliance and substantive fairness of the proposed rules, sparked a heated debate in the Kenyan legislature.

Sifuna highlighted his personal financial stake, stating, “I stand to oppose these regulations by the Committee, which is recommending that we support them. I speak as a stakeholder because I pay over 30,000 shillings every single month through an involuntary deduction that I opposed. This fund already holds my money.”

He challenged the procedural integrity, noting that the Cabinet Secretary submitted draft regulations instead of published regulations as required by law. He said it was unacceptable for the Committee, led by Hon. MoFaya, to overlook this breach.

“My objection is twofold. First, on procedural matters: I am not convinced by the explanation given by the Committee. It was their responsibility to ensure compliance with the law.”

“The Committee itself admits that, in violation of the law, the Cabinet Secretary submitted draft regulations instead of published regulations as required. Yet, the Committee, led by Hon. MoFaya, is asking me, as a lawyer, to ignore this fact and its implications. That is unacceptable.”

He further questioned the timeliness of the review process, saying senators were required to approve or reject the regulations within 15 sitting days. He noted that the deadline had expired on September 11, meaning the regulations automatically stood approved.

“I therefore stand here wondering whether I am engaging in an exercise in futility,” he said.

Sifuna also criticised the publication method, pointing out that notices were circulated through MyGov and tucked into the Tuesday edition of The Star rather than a newspaper of nationwide circulation.

Allocation and deposit requirements

On substantive grounds, Sifuna said the regulations were meant to operationalise the Affordable Housing Act and provide procedures for allocation. He questioned how allocations could be made outside the Board established under the Act.

He also opposed the proposed 5 per cent deposit requirement, saying residents of informal settlements such as Mathare, Mukuru and Kibra could not afford it despite already contributing to the fund.

“The initial argument was that those of us who make income contribute these funds so that people in Mukuru can be able to afford those houses. Are we still serving those people, or are these houses available for donations because of someone sitting in the office of the head of state? He can decide today that Faith Kipyegon deserves a two-bedroom house.”

Political interference

Sifuna raised alarms about political interference, claiming that houses could be allocated at the discretion of powerful offices. Senator Aaron Cheruiyot echoed concerns about the legality of debating already-approved regulations, noting that the Committee on Delegated Legislation should clarify the matter.

Cheruiyot also addressed rumours of favouritism, saying he had heard claims that some houses were allocated to footballers but had no evidence of this. The debate on the Affordable Housing Regulations, 2025, continues as lawmakers weigh their legality and fairness.

“I have heard people saying that some houses were allocated to footballers. I don’t know which footballers they are talking about. Why do people react to social media conversations? I expect you, as a legislator, to go into details and understand issues clearly. I listened to the president keenly when he was addressing the footballers.

He said, “I am willing to top up something for you so that you can pay the deposits.” So, I don’t know where this talk about donations is coming from.”