MWAMISI: Why Kenya must rethink and embrace public private partnership

Head of Public Service Felix Koskei fires the starting pistol at Uzalendo Marathon on July 19 /HANDOUT

The idea of Public Private Partnerships or PPPs, is not new. It dates back to ancient civilisations that hired private contractors to collect taxes, build aqueducts and maintain roads on behalf of the state.

In more modern terms, the UK is credited with institutionalising PPPs during the 1990s under the Private Finance Initiative, as a response to constrained public finances and ageing infrastructure.

Since then, PPPs have become a global tool, widely adopted in developed and developing economies, as a way of delivering public infrastructure and services by leveraging private capital, expertise and efficiency.

Yet in Kenya, the term PPP or Privatisation has increasingly become synonymous with suspicion.

Years of poorly structured deals, secretive procurement processes and public backlash over issues of ownership and value for money have fuelled a perception that PPPs are merely avenues for privatisation by stealth.

This is understandable. Projects such as the Managed Equipment Services and recent discussions around the now-cancelled Adani leasing deal at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport have made it easy for the public to view PPPs as exploitative rather than developmental.

That perception must change, however, because Kenya, realistically, cannot pursue serious national development without PPPs for financing. 

 Across Europe, Asia and North America, PPPs have built airports, digital infrastructure, mass transit systems, energy grids and more.

Countries such as Canada and Australia have emerged as global leaders in structuring PPPs with balanced risk-sharing frameworks, high transparency standards, and measurable public benefits.

In China and India, PPPs have played a catalytic role in upgrading infrastructure at an unprecedented pace. In short, PPPs, when done properly, can be transformative.

 Kenya has not been left behind in recognising this potential. However, our experience has been uneven.

While some projects, such as the Nairobi Expressway, have visibly improved mobility and decongested the city, others have generated controversy and triggered public suspicion.

The Managed Equipment Services (MES) project in the health sector, intended to equip county hospitals, ended up mired in questions over value for money, opaque procurement, and ballooning costs.

 More recently, the proposed deal involving India’s Adani Group to take over operations at JKIA sparked fierce debate.

Opposition leader Raila Odinga warned of handing a strategic national asset to a foreign private entity without sufficient public disclosure or stakeholder engagement.

His concerns, though wrapped in political tone, echoed legitimate anxieties. PPPs in Kenya have sometimes become proxies for privatisation with little protection for the public interest.

Yet despite these missteps, Kenya cannot afford to retreat from PPPs, not now, not when fiscal headroom is shrinking and the infrastructure gap continues to widen.

The simple truth is that the government alone cannot marshal the capital required to fund its development ambitions.

The public purse is overburdened, external borrowing is tightening and revenue collection, while improving, remains insufficient.

 If Kenya is to achieve its Vision 2030 goals, transition into a modern industrial economy and respond to the demands of its youthful population, then structured, inclusive and accountable PPPs are non-negotiable.

 We are sitting on a demographic volcano. With over a million young Kenyans entering the job market each year, unemployment is fast becoming a national crisis.

Youth disaffection, visible in recent waves of protest and civic unrest, reflects the consequences of an economy that has failed to expand fast enough, broadly enough, even though Kenya now ranks sixth in Africa in GDP according to IMF estimates in 2025.

Properly structured PPPs can become vehicles for job creation, which is sorely needed in Kenya, technology transfer, vocational training and SME growth.

Each infrastructure project, whether in transport, water, housing or ICT, can and should carry with it a framework for absorbing local labour, stimulating local supply chains and building domestic technical capacity.

 But we must not stop at the large infrastructure projects alone. A promising new frontier lies in cross-sector innovation, partnerships that go beyond the traditional bricks-and-mortar model.

One such example is the Uzalendo Marathon in Baringo, an inspiring initiative that brings together county government, private sponsors, athletes, leaders from the region and communities.

Proceeds from the race fund the education of indigent learners, showing how sport, philanthropy and public purpose can be braided into a powerful development tool. This is PPP thinking, localised, people-driven and sustainable.

 To move forward, Kenya must strengthen the governance of its PPP framework.

This includes ensuring competitive bidding, full transparency in contract terms, enforceable clauses on performance and equity and continuous public oversight.

There must also be clarity on risk allocation and on what portion is borne by the state and what by the investor. Far too often, PPPs collapse into socialised losses and privatised profits. That must end.

 Further, local capital must be mobilised. Kenya’s pension funds, SACCOs, development banks and cooperatives hold billions that can be channeled into strategic PPP projects.

These domestic actors have a vested interest in national development and are more likely to support inclusive models that do not merely maximise returns but also deliver social impact.

 And finally, we must elevate citizen participation. The public is not a passive recipient of development, it is a stakeholder.

Citizens must be informed, consulted and empowered to shape the terms under which their infrastructure is built and their services delivered. In truth, Kenya cannot not do PPPs. But it must do them differently.

 We need a new PPP doctrine, one that prioritises public interest, demands transparency, expands opportunities for our youth and mobilises the full breadth of national and local resources.

A doctrine that sees PPPs not as a shortcut for state abdication but as a smart instrument for shared prosperity. Because in the final analysis, it is not the model that fails us, but how we use it.