In a twist of irony that would be comical if it weren't so significant, the Judiciary—the very institution that declared the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) unconstitutional—is now relying on those same funds to build courts across the country.

This paradox highlights the complex and often contradictory relationship between Kenya's arms of government. While the Supreme Court famously ruled that MPs managing development funds violated the separation of powers, the reality on the ground is that the Judiciary is broke, and CDF is the only liquidity available for infrastructure expansion.

The Funding Crisis

Chief Justice Martha Koome has repeatedly decried the slashing of the Judiciary's budget by the Treasury. With a backlog of cases and a shortage of courtrooms, the Judiciary has quietly entered into partnerships with MPs to fund new law courts in constituencies using NG-CDF.

• The Deal: MPs allocate CDF money to build court structures, which the Judiciary then staffs and equips. It is a pragmatic solution to a constitutional stalemate.
• The Contradiction: Legal purists argue this compromises the independence of the courts. How can a judge rule impartially on a CDF embezzlement case when their very courtroom was built by that fund?
• MPs' Victory: For legislators, this is a vindication. They argue that despite the "high-minded" rulings from Nairobi, the CDF is the only fund that actually delivers tangible development to the grassroots.

A Marriage of Convenience

This uneasy alliance suggests that in Kenya, pragmatism often trumps constitutional purity. The courts need buildings, and MPs need to show development. Until the Treasury fully funds the Judiciary, this "illegal" money will continue to lay the foundations of justice.