Why the Infrastructure Fund Debate Is Really About Trust in Public Money

 National Infrastructure Fund Bill 2026, the pushback from watchdogs like the Controller of Budget (CoB) and Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) points to a much bigger problem: a crisis of confidence in how Kenya manages public money.

Unlike typical policy disagreements, this debate isn’t just about how to build roads or rail lines  it’s about who controls the money and how citizens can be confident it won’t disappear into poorly supervised channels. Here’s what the concerns really signal:

The CoB argues that the bill creates the fund as a corporate entity rather than a properly established public fund, a move that could sidestep normal government financial controls.  That raises the question: should a multitrillion-shilling fund operate like a private business without standard accountability frameworks?

This debate is not just semantic  it goes to the heart of how Parliament and executive power interact over public resources, and whether existing legal safeguards are enough.

                                              Exclusion of key oversight bodies undermines checks and balances

One of the fiercest criticisms is that the Controller of Budget’s office would be excluded from authorizing withdrawals and expenditure.  Historically, public funds flow through the Consolidated Fund so that the CoB and Auditor-General can audit them. By questioning this structure, watchdogs are essentially saying:

“If you take this money outside established oversight systems, you risk creating a shadow reservoir of public funds.”

That’s a red flag for anyone worried about transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline. Critics also point out that the bill doesn’t clearly extract revenue from the Consolidated Fund first, meaning proceeds could bypass routine budget procedures.  This touches on a broader concern: big infrastructure schemes must be funded in a way that is consistent with constitutional and budgetary norms not ad hoc or administratively opaque.

This links back to a larger national debate over debt, pending bills, and fiscal prioritization, issues the CoB has also flagged separately as choking economic cashflows and delaying payments.

                      Calls for an independent governance model reveal lack of trust in state institutions

Both ICPAK and other institutions want the fund managed by an independent entity, not the National Treasury.  That recommendation isn’t just technocratic  it reflects deep-seated skepticism about the ability of existing systems to shield big money from political interference and mismanagement. Similar concerns about governance and political influence have come up from other experts critical of the infrastructure fund’s design. 

This sheds light on a structural issue: Kenya’s evolving fiscal architecture is straining to keep pace with megaproject financing.

 So why does this matter?

Kenya’s drive to mobilize KSh 5 trillion for infrastructure  through selling state assets and attracting private capital  is ambitious. But the real test isn’t only whether the money can be raised, but whether the mechanisms to deploy and audit it are trusted.

The concerns raised by the CoB and others suggest that Kenya’s financial governance institutions are on the edge of a crucial stress test. The outcome could shape not only this fund’s success, but public confidence in budget transparency and accountability for years to come.