Our Kenya

Building Bridges Initiative

4 min read

The Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) was Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga's attempt to reform Kenya's constitution following their March 2018 reconciliation. Announced in May 2018, BBI promised to address nine areas: ethnic antagonism, lack of national ethos, corruption, divisive elections, safety and security, shared prosperity, devolution, and inclusivity. The initiative produced a 156-page report in November 2019 and a constitutional amendment bill in 2020 that proposed expanding the executive, creating new constituencies, and entrenching revenue sharing formulas. However, in May 2021, Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled the entire BBI process unconstitutional, killing the initiative and handing Uhuru one of his most significant political defeats.

BBI's origins lay in the political crisis of 2017 and early 2018. After two divisive elections, violent protests, and Raila's symbolic "people's inauguration," Kenya's political elite concluded that winner-take-all politics were unsustainable. The handshake created political space for constitutional dialogue, and BBI became the vehicle. A 14-member task force, led by Garissa Senator Yusuf Haji, was established to diagnose Kenya's challenges and propose solutions. The task force held public consultations across the country, collecting views that were synthesized into the November 2019 BBI report, which formed the basis for constitutional amendments.

The BBI constitutional amendment bill proposed significant changes to Kenya's governance structure. It would create a prime minister position appointed by the president from the majority party in parliament, along with two deputy prime minister positions. It would expand the executive by creating a cabinet of at least 60 ministers, up from the current limit of around 22. It would increase the number of constituencies from 290 to 360, creating 70 new parliamentary seats. It would entrench the "one man, one vote, one shilling" formula for devolution, guaranteeing counties at least 35 percent of national revenue. And it would create an official opposition leader position with state funding and privileges.

Proponents argued BBI would reduce winner-take-all politics by ensuring that losing presidential candidates and minority communities still had guaranteed positions in government. They claimed it would end the cycle of electoral violence by making elections less existential. They pointed to the increased devolution funding as benefiting ordinary Kenyans, particularly in marginalized counties. Uhuru and Raila positioned BBI as the fulfillment of the handshake's promise to create a more inclusive political system. They mobilized Kikuyu, Luo, and coastal elites behind the initiative, holding massive rallies across the country to build support.

Opponents attacked BBI as an elite power-sharing deal designed to create positions for politicians rather than solve ordinary Kenyans' problems. William Ruto led the opposition, framing BBI as "dynasties" trying to entrench their privileges against "hustlers" who wanted economic opportunity rather than constitutional tinkering. Critics noted that expanding the executive would cost billions of shillings Kenya did not have, particularly during COVID-19 economic stress. Legal scholars questioned whether the amendments were too extensive, effectively creating a new constitution that required a referendum rather than parliamentary amendment. The "reggae" versus "hustler" narrative dominated the debate, with BBI supporters chanting "reggae" (Raila's metaphor for unstoppable momentum) and opponents rallying behind Ruto's hustler symbolism.

In May 2021, the Court of Appeal delivered a devastating ruling that stopped BBI entirely. The court held that the president cannot initiate constitutional amendments through a popular initiative, only parliament or citizens can. It ruled that the BBI process violated the principle of public participation because the task force was presidential rather than citizen-driven. The judgment was a sweeping rejection of BBI's legal foundation, though proponents appealed to the Supreme Court. In March 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, permanently killing BBI and establishing that presidents cannot use popular initiative processes to amend the constitution.

BBI's failure marked a turning point in Uhuru's presidency. It showed the limits of executive power under the 2010 constitution and demonstrated that judicial independence would constrain even determined presidents. It revealed that the Uhuru-Raila alliance, while politically powerful, could not overcome constitutional safeguards. Most importantly, it allowed Ruto to position himself as the champion of democratic process against dynastic manipulation, a narrative that carried him to victory in the 2022 election. BBI's collapse was Uhuru's most visible second-term failure, a reminder that political will alone cannot override constitutional limits.

See Also

Sources

  1. "Building Bridges to a United Kenya: From a Nation of Blood Ties to a Nation of Ideals," BBI Taskforce Report, November 2019. https://www.nation.co.ke/kenya/news/bbi-taskforce-report-full-document-258008
  2. "Kenya Court of Appeal Ruling: BBI Unconstitutional," Court of Appeal Judgment, May 2021. http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/213440/
  3. "Building Bridges Initiative: Kenya's Latest Constitutional Moment?" Constitution Net, December 2020. http://constitutionnet.org/news/building-bridges-initiative-kenyas-latest-constitutional-moment
  4. "BBI Verdict: What the Supreme Court Said About Kenya's Push for Constitutional Change," The Conversation, March 2024. https://theconversation.com/bbi-verdict-what-the-supreme-court-said-about-kenyas-push-for-constitutional-change-201234

Backlinks