Kenya - AI Regulatory Framework Motion

Overview

In 2025 the National Assembly of Kenya considered and recorded a Motion titled "Formulation of a Regulatory Framework on Artificial Intelligence" moved by Aldai MP Hon. Marianne Kitany. The Motion highlights both opportunities and risks presented by AI and formally urges the Government, led by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Digital Economy (MICDE), to develop a national regulatory and ethical framework for the deployment and use of AI in Kenya and to implement a nationwide public awareness programme. The Motion was debated in June 2025 and is recorded in the Official Hansard (National Assembly Hansard, 18 June 2025) and appears on the National Assembly Motions Tracker. As a parliamentary Motion, it is a resolution addressed to the executive, directing the Ministry to lead further policy and regulatory work rather than creating statutory law itself.

Definitions

The Motion provides a broad definition of artificial intelligence (AI), describing it as "the use of a digital computer or computer-controlled robots to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings." The Motion frames Kenya's AI status using external AI readiness metrics and frames the policy task in risk-focused terms by citing specific harms of concern, including "AI-powered fake technology algorithms," "algorithmic discrimination," privacy invasion and other AI-related harms. The Motion does not attempt to produce an exhaustive set of technical definitions for all AI subfields but establishes a working, policy-oriented definition suitable for guiding the Ministry's subsequent drafting of regulatory instruments and ethical guidelines.

Governance and Institutional Framework

The Motion does not itself create new statutory institutions. Instead it instructs the Government, through MICDE, to design governance mechanisms as part of the proposed national regulatory and ethical framework. Parliamentary debate referenced the likely roles of departmental committees, suggested multi‑stakeholder consultation and identified potential participants for policy formulation and oversight, including parliamentary committees, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC), civil society, academia and the private sector. The Motion therefore places an obligation on the Government — specifically MICDE — to lead the drafting process and to propose appropriate institutional arrangements (which could include oversight bodies, inter-agency coordination mechanisms and stakeholder engagement processes) when presenting the proposed framework.

Key Focus Areas

• Formulation of a national regulatory framework and ethical guidelines for AI to prevent and control misuse, and to provide standards for deployment and oversight.
• Development and execution of a nationwide public awareness programme to increase literacy, foster transparency and promote responsible public use of AI.
• Identification and mitigation of harms including disinformation, privacy breaches and privacy invasion, algorithmic discrimination, autonomous weapons risks, job displacement and economic inequality.
• Scope across sectors where AI is deployed — including health, education, finance, public administration, media and security — so that the regulatory instruments apply broadly in national policy terms.
• Protection of fundamental rights (privacy, nondiscrimination, information integrity) and placing obligations on public institutions to participate in awareness-raising and implementation activities.
• Preparation for future compliance obligations for AI developers, deployers and public-sector users in areas such as transparency, accountability, data governance and risk management, to be specified in the Government-led framework.

Implementation Framework

The Motion requests prompt action by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Digital Economy but does not set binding deadlines. It directs the Government to undertake the policy and regulatory work necessary to deliver a national framework. Expected implementation steps set out or implied by the Motion include: policy drafting by MICDE; multi-stakeholder consultations that involve parliamentary committees, sector regulators, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, civil society, academia and private-sector actors; Committee scrutiny in Parliament; and publication of draft regulations or a White Paper for public comment. The Motion further implies that the Government should design enforceable regulatory and ethical guidelines and propose governance and compliance mechanisms (such as oversight arrangements, conformity assessment or certification processes) as part of the framework, although the Motion does not prescribe the specific instruments or technical modalities for these measures.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The Motion does not prescribe specific monitoring and evaluation (M&E) metrics, performance indicators or reporting cycles. It asks the Government to design governance mechanisms in the forthcoming framework, which the Government is expected to populate with appropriate M&E arrangements. Parliamentary debate and the Motion’s text suggest that oversight could include parliamentary committee scrutiny and multi-stakeholder monitoring, and that the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and other sector regulators may play roles in compliance oversight. The precise monitoring indicators, data-collection requirements, review periods and public reporting obligations are to be determined when the Ministry drafts the detailed framework and any accompanying regulatory instruments.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

The Motion does not itself establish penalties, administrative sanctions, criminal liabilities or appeal routes. It explicitly instructs the Government to include appropriate regulatory and ethical measures, which may encompass enforcement mechanisms, in the proposed framework. Any binding penalties, liability rules or appeal processes will therefore depend on the form and content of subsequent legislation, subordinate regulations or statutory instruments drafted by MICDE and, where required, enacted by Parliament. In short, the Motion signals an intent to develop enforceable measures but leaves the legal modalities and sanctioning regimes to future instruments.

Relationship to Other Instruments

The Motion situates the proposed AI framework alongside existing domestic instruments. It references alignment with the Data Protection Act and ongoing digital economy policies (for example, the Government’s Digital Master Plan) and describes the need for the AI regulatory framework to complement or align with existing sectoral statutes and ICT regulations. Parliamentary debate explicitly noted the importance of ensuring coherence with Kenya’s data protection regime and with sectoral regulators, and the Motion requests that the Government consider these relationships when drafting the new framework.

International Alignment

Debate referenced international work and comparative models to frame Kenya’s approach. The Motion cites international comparators such as the EU AI Act and national AI strategies elsewhere as relevant points of reference for the Government’s policy development. It calls for the Kenyan framework to be informed by international best practice while remaining tailored to domestic priorities and statutory regimes, such as the Data Protection Act and national digital transformation objectives.

Implementation Timeline

Sources and References