A legislative proposal currently before the National Assembly is igniting a fierce debate over the future of Kenya’s Foreign Service, aiming to redefine who represents the country on the global stage.
The Foreign Service (Amendment) Bill, 2025, sponsored by Mwingi West Member of Parliament Charles Nguna Ngusya, seeks to drastically professionalize diplomatic postings by amending the existing Foreign Service Act, Cap 185E. Its core provision mandates that at least 70% of all appointments, ambassadors, high commissioners, and permanent representatives, must be drawn from career diplomats. The remaining 30% would be non-career appointees who must still possess demonstrable expertise in diplomacy or international relations.
The Bill’s proponents argue that the measure is essential to align the diplomatic corps with the country’s modern, expertise-driven foreign policy, as outlined in the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2025 on Kenya’s Foreign Policy.
The new law is explicitly designed to curb the long-standing practice of using ambassadorial positions as a soft landing for politicians who have been dismissed from office or need political rewards. This practice, critics argue, has often resulted in unqualified or ineffective representation.
The need for this shift has been underscored by recent appointments, such as the December 2024 nomination of former Cabinet Secretaries Prof Margaret Ndung’u (ICT) and Dr Andrew Karanja (Agriculture) as envoys to Ghana and Brazil, respectively.
Supporting this push, Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi stated that anchoring foreign policy in law would ensure it is citizen-centred and transparent, moving away from opaque diplomatic practices to an accountable, interest-driven approach. Furthermore, the revised policy seeks to broaden Kenya’s diplomatic scope from the traditional five pillars to include critical new areas like health and technology diplomacy.
The Bill is currently in its pre-public scrutiny stage, under review by the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Defence, Intelligence and Foreign Relations, chaired by MP Nelson Koech, who is receiving input from key bodies like the Office of the Attorney General.
Despite the push for professionalism, a robust counter-argument vehemently opposes the Bill, warning that it amounts to the Legislature micromanaging the Executive and prioritizing bureaucracy over political necessity.
The dissenters argue that foreign affairs is fundamentally a political function, not a bureaucratic one. The President requires the discretion to appoint individuals they trust implicitly to execute their political agenda, regardless of civil service rank.
The opposition views the Bill as an act of legislated job security for career bureaucrats, claiming the civil service is attempting to create a protected class and erode the executive’s prerogative. Restricting the 70% threshold is seen as an undue legislative intervention that diminishes the President’s ability to be held solely politically accountable for their key appointments.