The debate unfolded on X on Wednesday and quickly drew attention from lawyers academics and political analysts. Many saw the exchange as small in words but heavy in meaning for Kenya’s reform history.
David Ndii who serves as President William Ruto’s chief economic adviser shared a post outlining his past work. He said he wrote the Economic Recovery Strategy adopted by the NARC government in 2003.
Ndii also claimed he authored the NASA manifesto used by Raila Odinga during the 2017 election. He added that he later wrote the Kenya Kwanza plan that supported Ruto’s successful 2022 campaign.
He went further to say that he wrote Chapter Twelve of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution. This chapter focuses on public finance and outlines how public money should be raised shared and used.
Ndii suggested that his ideas have guided Kenya’s economic and governance direction for nearly three decades. He added that political leaders often seek him out rather than the other way around.
Soon after the post went public Kivutha Kibwana responded in a striking manner. He reposted Ndii’s message exactly as it was without adding a single word of comment.
Many users interpreted the move as sarcastic rather than supportive. To them the silence appeared to question the idea that one individual could claim ownership of such major national work.
Chapter Twelve of the Constitution was shaped through a long national process. It involved experts parliamentary committees civic groups and citizens across the country.
The chapter sets rules on accountability fair sharing of resources and responsible public spending. It is widely viewed as a product of collective effort and public participation.
Kibwana is a respected constitutional law scholar who played a role during the reform era. He has often argued that the Constitution belongs to the people and institutions not to individuals.
The exchange has reopened debate on social media and beyond. Many Kenyans are now questioning how credit for national reforms should be shared.
Some defended Ndii’s influence while others warned against personalising collective achievements. The discussion continues to grow as more voices weigh in.