Built environment bodies oppose proposed architectural and quantity surveying bill

Professional bodies representing Kenya’s built environment sector have opposed a proposed law regulating architects, quantity surveyors and other professionals, saying it could create regulatory conflicts and weaken public protection.

The Interior Designers Association of Kenya (IDAK), Association of Construction Managers of Kenya (ACMK) and The Architects Alliance have petitioned Parliament to suspend consideration of the Architectural and Quantity Surveying Practitioners Bill, 2026, and conduct a broader review involving affected professional groups.

The organisations said their opposition was not aimed at preventing regulation of the sector, but at ensuring that any new framework reflects the distinct roles, training and responsibilities of different built environment professions.

The Bill brings architects, quantity surveyors, interior designers, landscape architects, construction project managers and technicians under a common legislative framework.

The professional bodies said combining the disciplines under a single Architectural and Quantity Surveying framework, potentially overseen by one regulatory board, could lead to overlapping mandates, disputes over professional jurisdiction, unclear liability and blurred scopes of practice.

They also raised concerns over provisions that leave key regulatory matters to be determined after the legislation is enacted.

These include professional scopes of practice, fees and remuneration, education and examination standards, registration requirements and disciplinary procedures.

The groups said such matters should be clearly addressed in the primary legislation to prevent uncertainty and inconsistent regulation.

“The built environment requires more coherent, sophisticated and accountable regulation,” the organisations said in their petition, arguing that the proposed framework should strengthen rather than dilute professional accountability.

The petitioners also questioned what they described as the limited consideration given to previous research and regulatory proposals developed for Kenya’s built environment professions.

They cited work by the Coalition of Built Environment Professionals (CBEP), including research and an earlier regulatory model associated with Professor Alfred Omenya, saying such work should inform Parliament’s deliberations.

The organisations are calling for the Bill to be suspended pending a comprehensive review, followed by national consultations involving all affected professional disciplines.

They also want Parliament to define the respective scopes of practice for each profession and establish an overarching regulatory framework for built environment professions while retaining distinct structures for individual disciplines.

The petitioners have further called for the resignation of Joseph K. Tanui, chairperson of Parliament’s Departmental Committee on Housing, Urban Planning and Public Works, citing what they describe as a conflict of interest because he is reported to be both a sponsor of the Bill and chair of the committee reviewing it.

They said the alleged overlap could raise questions about the impartiality and credibility of the legislative process.

The three organisations said their campaign should not be viewed as a dispute between competing professional groups, but as an effort to establish clearer regulation and protect the public.

They urged Parliament to develop legislation capable of responding to rapid urbanisation, infrastructure development, technological change and increasingly specialised professional practice.

Kenya’s construction and built environment sector is expected to play a central role in the country’s infrastructure and urban development plans, increasing pressure for regulatory institutions to keep pace with changes in the industry.

The organisations said Parliament should therefore pursue legislation that provides clear professional accountability while preserving the autonomy and specialised functions of individual disciplines.

They called for a more inclusive legislative process, saying the objective should be a future-oriented regulatory system rather than one that imposes a uniform structure on professions with different mandates.