The High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the Youth Bill 2024, ruling that the case was premature since the proposed legislation has not yet been formally tabled before Parliament.
In a decision delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain matters concerning policy proposals or draft legislation that have not yet crystallized into definitive legal form. “The impugned Youth Bill 2024 is yet to be tabled in Parliament. The petition herein is premature, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene as moved by the petitioners,” Justice Mwamuye stated.
The ruling emphasized that judicial scrutiny of constitutional issues can only proceed once there is a concrete and identifiable subject for adjudication. Consequently, the Court upheld a preliminary objection by the second respondent, striking out the petitioners’ motion dated 17th December 2024.
At the heart of the petition were concerns surrounding Clauses 35–41 of the proposed bill, which seek to establish a new Youth Fund. Petitioners argued that the fund would duplicate the mandate of the existing Youth Enterprise Development Fund (YEDF), created under Legal Notice No. 63 of 2007. They contended that the YEDF already has a functioning board and clear objectives centered on youth empowerment and economic development.
The petitioners also challenged Clause 45, which proposes the creation of an Office of the Youth Registrar. They claimed this would mirror the functions of the Public Benefit Organizations (PBO) Regulatory Authority, established under the Public Benefits Organizations Act, thus introducing unnecessary bureaucratic redundancy.
Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of public participation. The petition cited a circular by the State Department for Youth Affairs and the Creative Economy dated 26th November 2024, which indicated that forums were only conducted in eight locations—allegedly failing to reflect Kenya’s regional diversity.
The petitioners argued that such legislative duplication violates principles of efficient governance, good use of public resources, and transparency as outlined in Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution.
Despite the Court’s dismissal, the petition highlights growing public scrutiny of proposed laws and their alignment with constitutional values.
