The call for change, boldness, and innovation featured prominently in President William Ruto’s State of the Nation Address on November 20, 2025, centred around four national priorities: transport and logistics, education, energy, and irrigation. The proposed pathway involved establishing an infrastructure fund to accelerate Kenya’s progress and position the country for economic success on a scale comparable to the Asian Tigers, including Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. These themes resonated during the recent public participation hearings on Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2026, which addressed the proposed partial divestment of Government shares in Safaricom.

While stakeholders differed on matters relating to process, valuation, disclosure and the safeguarding of national interests, there was broad acknowledgement that Kenya’s fiscal environment requires new approaches to infrastructure financing and asset optimisation. Industry bodies such as the Kenya Bankers Association (KBA) and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) noted the need for instruments that can mobilise long-term capital without exacerbating fiscal pressures.

It was evident that the time is ripe for Kenya to explore alternative financing mechanisms that reduce reliance on tax revenue mobilisation and help contain public debt accumulation, which has reached concerning levels. According to the International Monetary Fund’s December 2025 Debt Sustainability Analysis, Kenya’s present value of public debt to GDP stands at 64 per cent, above the global benchmark of 55%.

To contextualise this approach, comparable models have been deployed in other markets to unlock private capital for infrastructure. Several countries offer valuable lessons for Kenya. In Chile, the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo de Infraestructura (FONADIN) combined public-private partnerships with government capital injections to finance transport, energy, and water projects. The fund successfully attracted private co-investment and improved transparency in project selection, though early delays and cost overruns highlighted the need for robust project readiness. 

Canada’s Infrastructure Bank (CIB), established in 2017, has mobilised billions of dollars for public transit, green energy and digital infrastructure through equity, loans, and guarantees. India’s National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF), launched in 2015, leverages both domestic and foreign institutional investors through co-investment models that reduce fiscal burden and expand financing capacity, provided that strong project pipelines and private-sector collaboration are maintained. 

These international experiences reflect principles enshrined in Kenya’s national governance framework. Article 10 of the Constitution obliges the state to adhere to national values and principles, including sustainable development. Both the Kenya Kwanza and Azimio manifestos emphasised innovative approaches to infrastructure financing, recognising the need to reduce fiscal pressure while accelerating national development. The proposed National Infrastructure fund presents an opportunity to operationalise these constitutional and manifesto commitments. 

While the government has established a limited liability company through a Cabinet memo to serve as the vehicle for the National Infrastructure Fund, it is essential to set clear criteria for what constitutes a commercially viable project, ensure rigorous project appraisal and monitoring, and uphold strong corporate governance standards, even within the LLC structure.

To provide additional certainty, the proposal for an Act of Parliament to formally anchor the Infrastructure Fund is worth serious consideration. Such legislation would not only reinforce accountability and investor confidence but also align the Fund’s operations with national development priorities. Several countries have established national infrastructure funds through formal legislation. Canada’s Infrastructure Bank, for example, was created under the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, 2017, which defines its mandate, investment criteria, and accountability mechanisms, allowing it to mobilise private capital while remaining accountable to Parliament. Chile’s FONADIN and South Africa’s Infrastructure Fund were similarly established under enabling laws. Across these examples, projects are selected based on clear criteria to ensure financial and social returns and alignment with national priorities. 

In conclusion, Kenya’s National Infrastructure Fund offers an opportunity to close the infrastructure financing gap while reducing reliance on public debt. Anchoring the Fund in law would provide transparency and investor confidence, while ensuring alignment with national development priorities and constitutional principles.