Hearing over case challenging Ruto’s National Infrastructure Fund to begin

The High Court is set to begin hearing a petition challenging President William Ruto’s proposed National Infrastructure Fund.

Several litigants are questioning the fund’s legality, constitutionality, and the manner in which it was established.

The hearing comes after the court issued conservatory orders barring the government from establishing, incorporating, registering, operationalising, funding or otherwise giving effect to the proposed fund pending the determination of the case.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted the orders on December 24, 2025, restraining the respondents, whether acting jointly or severally, and whether directly or through their agents or related entities, from taking any steps to implement the impugned fund.

The case was filed by petitioners Benjamin Gikenyi, Eliud Matindi, Philemon Abuga and Dishon Keroti, who are challenging the establishment of the National Infrastructure Fund through a presidential communiqué dated December 15, 2025.

They argue that the fund was created through executive action without adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements governing public finance.

In their petition, the applicants contend that the establishment of a public fund through executive fiat violates Article 201(d) of the Constitution, which requires prudent and responsible use of public financial resources.

They argue that any public fund must be anchored in law and subjected to parliamentary oversight to safeguard accountability and transparency.

The petitioners further argue that the proposed fund poses a threat to the Equalisation Fund established under Article 204 of the Constitution.

They claim the infrastructure fund risks diverting resources from marginalised areas or duplicating functions already assigned to the Equalisation Fund, undermining its constitutional purpose.

 According to the petition, the process contravenes several articles of the constitution, which emphasise the rule of law, good governance, transparency, accountability, openness and public participation.

The petitioners argue that it remains unclear whether the National Infrastructure Fund has been established as a company limited by shares or by guarantee, as required under Sections 5 to 7 of the Companies Act.

A key issue raised is the alleged lack of public participation.

The petitioners maintain that Kenyans were not consulted prior to the announcement of the fund, despite its far-reaching implications on public finance and national development priorities.

The respondents named in the case include the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Economic Planning, the National Assembly, the Senate and the Controller of Budget.

The government has defended the proposed fund, saying it is intended to support Kenya’s transition into a developed economy while easing pressure on public debt.

President Ruto has linked the initiative to a broader reform agenda that includes asset sales and the creation of a sovereign wealth vehicle, positioning infrastructure investment as a key driver of long-term economic growth.

According to the government, the fund is designed to unlock alternative financing mechanisms and reduce reliance on traditional borrowing.

Parties are expected to highlight their submissions during today’s session as the court begins substantive consideration of the constitutional challenge.