Kenya has for years celebrated its diaspora as an important pillar of national development. Yet despite their enormous contribution to the economy and the millions of Kenyans whose lives they support, Kenyans living abroad remain among the least directly represented groups in national policymaking.
This needs to change. Kenya has millions of citizens living abroad. Their contribution is most visible through remittances. Central Bank of Kenya data shows formal diaspora remittances reached US$5.037 billion in 2025. At prevailing exchange rates, that translates to roughly Sh650 billion annually.
But even that does not capture the full picture. The 2025 Remittances Household Survey by the Central Bank of Kenya, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and FSD Kenya estimated that Kenyan households received Sh931.8 billion in cash and in-kind remittances between June 2024 and May 2025. The money supports education, healthcare, food, housing, businesses and other household needs.
A community contributing hundreds of billions of shillings to Kenya every year deserves a meaningful voice in the institutions where national policy is made. This is particularly important because numerous policies directly affect Kenyans abroad. They include citizenship, immigration, taxation, investment, property ownership, labour migration, consular services and voting rights.
For years, diaspora advocacy organisations have engaged Government and constitutional institutions seeking reforms. Diaspora representatives have engaged the Presidency, Parliament, the IEBC and other institutions, while diaspora issues have also been raised with political leaders and civil society organisations. Yet the fundamental problem remains: the diaspora has no dedicated representative in Parliament.
This matters because some problems facing Kenyans abroad require political rather than purely diplomatic solutions. Our embassies and consulates perform an important role, but they cannot amend legislation, allocate national budgets or change electoral laws.
Interestingly, the Constitution may already provide an avenue worth exploring. Article 97(1)(c) provides for 12 members nominated to the National Assembly by parliamentary political parties, proportionate to their representation in the House, to represent special interests, including youth, persons with disabilities and workers. The courts have recognised that the categories of special interests are not necessarily confined to those expressly listed and that political parties have a role in identifying such interests within the law. The Senate is different. Its nominated seats are constitutionally prescribed for women, youth and persons with disabilities. The National Assembly therefore appears to offer greater scope for political parties to consider diaspora interests through party-list nominations.
The difficulty is that the diaspora is not specifically mentioned in Article 97. Consequently, there is no automatic requirement compelling political parties to reserve one of these positions for a diaspora representative. That leaves millions of Kenyans abroad dependent on the willingness of political parties to recognise diaspora representation as a legitimate special interest.
Political parties should therefore have a national conversation about this opportunity. A party choosing to include a genuine diaspora representative on its National Assembly party list would be making an institutional commitment to diaspora participation rather than merely courting Kenyans abroad during campaigns.
-The writer is a diaspora affairs advocate in UK
