The Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Union (KMPDU) urged Parliament to withdraw the proposed Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Amendment) Bill, 2026, describing it as unnecessary and duplicative of regulations already in force. The appeal was announced at a participation event held on August 22 in Kiambu County.
Union calls for withdrawal
KMPDU argues that the existing legal framework already equips authorities with sufficient tools to regulate health professionals and to address malpractice. It maintains that doctors can operate effectively within the current system without additional legislation.
The association’s position rests on the assessment that Kenya does not suffer from a governance gap in medical practice, so the proposed legislation would target a problem that does not exist. This view places the union at odds with the bill’s sponsors, who point to specific shortcomings that the present law does not cover.
What the amendment proposes
The proposal is sponsored by Nyeri Town MP Duncan Mathenge. Its objectives go beyond superficial adjustments to the regulatory architecture.
First, it seeks to introduce additional regulatory measures targeting the fraudulent acquisition of practicing licences – a direct response to concerns about unqualified or improperly credentialed individuals gaining access to clinical practice, a problem that strikes at the heart of patient safety.
Read Also: Kenya tax authority reallocates 5 billion shillings
Second, the draft would broaden the oversight mandate of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council, the statutory body that issues licences and disciplines doctors and dentists. Expanded powers could enable the council to intervene more decisively when professional misconduct is identified.
Third, the legislation introduces penalties for facilities that illegally detain patients or bodies over unpaid medical bills. Offending institutions could face fines of up to Ksh 5 million and prison terms of up to five years.
Points of contention
This is where KMPDU’s blanket rejection becomes harder to defend on its face. The union represents doctors and dentists – not hospital administrators or facility owners who profit from patient detention practices.
Similarly, expanding the Council’s oversight mandate and cracking down on fraudulent licensing would, if anything, protect legitimate practitioners by weeding out unqualified competitors and reinforcing public trust in the profession. A union genuinely focused on protecting its members’ professional standing might be expected to welcome tighter controls on licence fraud, not resist them.
KMPDU’s objection may be less about the substance of these specific provisions and more about resisting an expansion of regulatory power generally – a common concern among professional bodies wary of ceding additional control to statutory councils, regardless of the stated intent. Unions have historically pushed back against amendments perceived as opening the door to broader disciplinary or bureaucratic overreach, even when individual clauses appear targeted and reasonable.
Leave a Reply