President William Ruto flagging off materials for the last mile connectivity programme in February 25, 2025/FILE
When President William Ruto came to power in 2022, his sustained narrative was that they (he and his running mate Rigathi Gachagua) found empty coffers. And so we heard, every passing day, for about a year and a half. That is, until the precipice of his acrimonious fallout with Gachagua, leading to the former Deputy President’s impeachment.
The tune changed. Suddenly, it was no longer about having no money to run government operations, to gifts of insane amounts to various groups and promises—running to millions for development.
As this was unfolding, tax hikes were unleashed, numerous funds established and statutory deductions revised. All well and good, but brings one to ask, how and from where is the money being obtained to fund the various kitties being established?
The proliferation of new, dedicated funds—such as the Affordable Housing Fund, the Nyota Fund, Hustler Fund and various others has raised significant red flags from the office of the Auditor General. The primary concern centers on a lax legal framework and weak governance structures that undermine transparency and accountability.
In recent reports, the Auditor General highlighted a pattern of concerning issues. Many of these funds operate with insufficient legal provisions for independent audits, or their governing boards lack the requisite financial expertise.
There is often inadequate public reporting on the collection, allocation and utilisation of billions of shillings, leaving a gaping hole in public oversight. In some instances, funds are established with overlapping mandates, creating duplication and complicating the tracking of resources.
The Auditor General has warned that this environment is conducive to the misappropriation of public resources and weak internal controls, defeating the very purpose of ring-fencing revenues for specific projects.
Notably, the responsibility for establishing and anchoring these public funds rests unequivocally with Parliament, not the presidency.
Kenya’s constitutional framework is clear: the power of the purse resides with the elected representatives of the people. Article 209 of the constitution grants Parliament the exclusive authority to impose taxes and authorise the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund.
Since many of these new funds are financed through specific taxes or levies (eg the Housing Levy), their creation is fundamentally a taxation and appropriation measure that requires parliamentary approval.
The President and the Executive can propose the establishment of such funds as part of their policy agenda and legislative programme. This is typically done through the National Treasury, which drafts the relevant bills, such as the Finance Bill.
However, the role of Parliament is not merely ceremonial. It is a critical check and balance intended to scrutinise, amend, approve, or reject these proposals. Parliament’s Finance and National Planning Committee holds a duty to conduct rigorous public participation, demand justifications from the Treasury and ensure the proposed fund has a robust legal framework for accountability before it is enacted into law.
Therefore, while the initiative may originate from the Executive, the ultimate constitutional responsibility for legitimising these funds lies with Parliament. If funds are operating with weak oversight, as the Auditor General notes, then Parliament bears a significant share of the responsibility for having passed the enabling legislation without insisting on stronger safeguards.
This dynamic places the onus on Members of Parliament to move beyond political alignment and exercise their oversight mandate robustly, ensuring any fund created serves the public interest under a framework of absolute transparency.
While these mechanisms can be legitimate tools for development financing, their current implementation, as flagged by oversight bodies, reveals systemic vulnerabilities. First, Parliament must strengthen the enabling legislation for each fund to mandate rigorous, independent annual audits whose reports are tabled publicly without exception.
Second, the governance of these entities must be overhauled to ensure their boards include qualified, independent professionals shielded from political patronage.
Third, there should perhaps be a centralised public portal—managed by a body that is known for upholding integrity—providing real-time data on inflows and outflows for every dedicated fund.
Finally, the Auditor General’s capacity and mandate must be bolstered to conduct regular performance audits, assessing not just financial probity but also the efficiency and effectiveness of these funds in achieving their stated development goals.
The real question for Kenyans is not just where the money is coming from, but whether the institutions mandated to guard it—especially Parliament—are empowered and willing to ensure it is used accountably for the national good. Hopefully, Kenyans will get value for their money this coming year.
