Category: Business Daily

Chief Justice Martha Koome has been drawn into a fresh face-off over the growing number of court battles over the planned Sh340 billion sale of British multinational Diageo’s entire 65 percent stake in East African Breweries (EABL), as well as its holding in spirits maker UDV Kenya, to Japanese beverage firm Asahi Group Holdings.

Rival litigants have written to the CJ seeking administrative intervention while urging opposite approaches to managing multiple court cases challenging the transaction.

EABL asked for all cases touching on the transaction to be centrally managed by one High Court judge or court station, but JILK Construction and its co-petitioners urge the Chief Justice to reject the request, saying that such a move would unfairly disadvantage litigants pursuing earlier claims.

The latest exchange follows EABL’s June 23 letter asking the Chief Justice to coordinate all court proceedings linked to the transaction, arguing that parallel litigation in different courts has created a risk of conflicting rulings.

Days later, lawyers representing JILK Construction Company, Bertha Wanjiru, Mary Njeri Wanyutu and engineer Sammy Maina Kamau urged the Chief Justice to reject that request, saying it would prejudice their longstanding claims against Diageo and its subsidiaries.

The opposing letters expose sharply different views on how the courts should handle litigation surrounding one of the country’s largest corporate deals.

The legal dispute concerns the proposed sale of 65 percent of shares held by the United Kingdom’s Diageo PLC in EABL to Japan’s Asahi Group Holdings, a transaction valued at about $2.3 billion (Sh340 billion).

Under the deal, Asahi would take full control of Diageo Kenya Limited, the investment vehicle through which the British firm holds its EABL stake.

The Japanese company would also acquire Diageo’s 53.68 percent stake in UDV Kenya. EABL holds the remaining shares in UDV Kenya and also retains management control of the unit.

EABL advocates, in their letter to the Chief Justice, said successive lawsuits filed in different courts have undermined legal certainty after judges in Nairobi repeatedly declined to stop the deal only for the High Court in Machakos to later issue conservatory orders freezing its implementation.

The brewer cited earlier rulings dismissing applications by beer supplier Bia Tosha Distributors and JILK Construction, as well as another Nairobi decision declining interim orders on public interest grounds.

“Our client is concerned that persons desirous of hindering completion of the transaction are now engaged in forum shopping across separate court stations,” EABL’s lawyers, Iseme, Kamau and Maema Advocates, wrote.

They added that the practice “amounts to a clear abuse of the court process and offends the principle of judicial comity between courts of concurrent jurisdiction.”

EABL asked the Chief Justice to assign all current and future High Court proceedings relating to the transaction to one judge or court station, expedite the pending cases and consider activating specialised tribunals established under the capital markets and competition laws.

The brewer said the transaction, valued at about $2.3 billion, could generate Sh42 billion in capital gains tax while providing certainty for shareholders, employees, suppliers and investors across Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

However, JILK Construction rejected those arguments in a June 26 response by Kinoti and Kibe Advocates, saying the request for administrative intervention overlooked disputes that began years before Diageo agreed to sell its EABL stake.

The firm said its claims arise from the construction of Kenya Breweries’ Kisumu plant between 2017 and 2019 and include arbitration, constitutional, commercial and criminal proceedings that remain pending.

It argued that those disputes should not be subordinated merely because Diageo has decided to dispose of its Kenyan investment.

“Our clients, however, appreciate to have all the cases involving Diageo PLC expedited and determined on priority in order to ensure that the substantive justice envisaged under Article 159 of the Constitution is achieved as Kenya bids goodbye to Diageo PLC,” the lawyers wrote.

The response also challenged EABL’s criticism of the Machakos conservatory orders, arguing that Kenya Breweries itself had previously obtained ex parte orders in December 2024 suspending publication of an arbitral award arising from the Kisumu dispute.

JILK said Diageo and its subsidiaries had benefited from interim court orders in the past and therefore could not fairly complain when similar relief was granted to other litigants.

The company further argued that the real issue before the courts was balancing the commercial interests of a multinational company seeking to exit Kenya against the rights of Kenyan claimants pursuing unresolved disputes.

Diageo announced the sale in December 2025 as part of a global strategy to streamline its portfolio and reduce debt.

The acquisition would give Asahi control of Diageo Kenya, EABL and Diageo’s majority stake in UDV Kenya, subject to regulatory approvals.

There is a dangerous assumption many entrepreneurs quietly carry: that politics, governance and civic leadership belong to other people. Politicians, activists, civil servants and policy experts.

Meanwhile, founders focus on building companies, surviving cash flow cycles, managing teams, chasing growth, and navigating regulation. Civic life feels distant from the pressures of entrepreneurship, something to observe from the sidelines rather than participate in directly.

But this separation is largely an illusion. Because whether founders choose to engage or not, governance eventually enters the boardroom anyway. It arrives through taxation, licensing, infrastructure, healthcare systems, education quality, digital regulation, corruption, currency instability, delayed payments and the quality, or failure of institutions surrounding the business environment itself.

At small scale, many entrepreneurs can avoid this reality for years. But as businesses grow, founders slowly discover something uncomfortable: the health of the enterprise is deeply tied to the health of the society around it. No company scales in isolation from its ecosystem. And no ecosystem matures when its builders remain permanently absent from helping shape it.

For too long, many African entrepreneurs have approached civic and public engagement reactively. We complain privately. We analyse governance failures in boardrooms, podcasts and WhatsApp groups. We critique broken systems over dinner conversations while hoping someone else eventually fixes them.

Yet many founders still hesitate to show up where influence is actually shaped. Not necessarily through elective politics, but through contribution, participation and service.

The irony is striking. Founders are often some of the most operationally capable people in society. We understand accountability because poor decisions cost us directly. We understand payroll pressure because we carry livelihoods personally. We understand inefficiency because we spend our lives navigating it.

Yet many entrepreneurs still see themselves as outsiders to national development conversations, as spectators reacting to the environment instead of contributors helping shape it.

That mindset is becoming increasingly dangerous for Africa. Because the next phase of African growth will not come from governments alone. It will emerge from ecosystems where enterprise, institutions, communities and civic participation begin working in closer alignment.

The entrepreneur running a logistics company understands supply chain friction more intimately than many policy papers ever will. The founder building in healthcare understands patient pain points beyond boardroom presentations. The SME owner employing twenty people understands economic pressure more honestly than most macroeconomic projections.

Founders hold lived intelligence. The question is whether they are willing to bring that intelligence into public life constructively. This is where many founders misunderstand leadership. Leadership is not merely ownership. It is stewardship.

The founder who creates jobs is already shaping society. The next step is recognising that influence carries responsibility beyond quarterly performance. Founders cannot continuously demand better systems while remaining permanently absent from helping improve them. This does not mean every entrepreneur must run for office.

Because what Africa often lacks is not intelligence. It is execution consistency. And founders understand execution deeply.

There is another uncomfortable truth entrepreneurs must confront. As Africa matures economically, the relationship between business and governance will tighten further. Technology, healthcare, AI, energy, digital infrastructure, agriculture and finance are becoming deeply intertwined with public trust and national direction.

Founders who ignore this reality may survive temporarily, but eventually they become vulnerable to systems they never helped shape. The future belongs to leaders who understand both enterprise and ecosystem. Leaders who recognise that building a company and building a country are not completely separate acts.

This matters especially for younger entrepreneurs watching leadership cycles unfold across the continent. Many feel frustrated. Some feel politically disconnected. Others have withdrawn entirely from civic participation. But cynicism alone has never built nations. Complaining is not participation.

In many countries, entrepreneurs carry more real economic influence than they fully appreciate. The challenge now is whether founders can begin seeing themselves not only as private actors, but as civic contributors shaping the future operating environment of the continent itself.

The founder cannot remain permanently in the audience while decisions shaping the future are made elsewhere.

At some point, leadership requires stepping onto the field, not to politicise business, but to contribute capabilities, execution, and responsibility toward something larger than individual success.

The question now is whether founders are ready to stop seeing themselves merely as survivors within the system and begin acting as participants in shaping what the system becomes next.

‘You can’t be seen, until you learn to see’ — marketing whiz, Seth Godin.

Is “How can we reach more customers?” the first question to ask? Or, should one start by asking, “Which small group of customers can we understand so well that we become their obvious choice?” Is it true that “No business plan survives first contact with customers?” Are managers best described as: predicably irrational? And, does organisation change often start with just one person?

Focus on a minimum viable marketSeth Godin argues that instead of trying to appeal to everyone, enterprises should identify the smallest market that can sustain their business and serve it exceptionally well.

Best way to do this is start with a specific group of people who share a common problem, identity, or aspiration. For instance, those on a lower income who need affordable quality health care, with a stress on prevention and wellness. Or, residents on the coast who need a short-term loan, but want to avoid the high interest rates of log book lenders.

Next step is to continually polish the product, offering to have a ‘wow’ factor.

Fancy term for this is having a product market fit. Meaning you create such remarkable value so that customers enthusiastically recommend you to others. Nothing persuades like word of mouth recommendations. Focus should be on building trust and belonging, not just transaction volumes and profitability. Then, wait to become indispensable to your loyal client niche before expanding.

Remember we make purchases based on how we want to feel. Our often-irrational emotions drive us. To begin with a minimum viable market approach helps to ask questions like, for instance: Who is it for? What change are you helping them make? Why will they tell others? Stress is not on the maximum reach, but more on building the relationship, based on being the most relevant.

In rolling out a minimum viable market approach start with filling in a three-sentence marketing promise.

1) My product is for people who believe …

2) I will focus on people who want …

3) I promise that engaging with what I make will help you get …

Marketing has shifted, from the days of almost industrial hype, scams and pressure which doesn’t work in the long run. Today, the focus is trying to make a difference by seeing and understanding the customers you seek to influence. All of which starts with a conversation.

Predictably irrational

Research by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman (along with Amos Tversky), showed people are not fully rational in the traditional economic sense. Instead, at best we are ‘predictably irrational’.

Managers do not make random mistakes. They make systematic errors in judgment and decision-making because our brains rely on mental shortcuts called heuristics. These are the mental shortcuts or ‘rules of thumb’ we use to solve problems, make judgments, and process information quickly.

This ‘default factory setting’ programming allows our brains to bypass time-consuming, complex analysis, conserving mental energy, but can often lead to systematic errors or cognitive biases. An example of this is that when facing uncertainty, managers weigh potential losses far more heavily than equivalent gains. This bias is known as loss aversion.

Businesses frequently frame their products to highlight what consumers might lose if they do not make a purchase. Prime example of this is software companies who offer free access to premium features for a limited time. Once users integrate the software into their daily routines, canceling feels like a loss of utility, greatly increasing the likelihood of an upgrade.

Irrational rules

‘When in doubt, assume that people will act accordingly to their current irrational urges, ignoring information that runs counter to their beliefs, trading long-term for short short-term benefits and most of all, being influenced by the culture they identify with’ says Godin.

But how do organisations change for the better? Truth is, companies are constantly in a state of flux, but a shift happens based on one uncomfortable truth.

One driving force

For every company that has made a profound performance shift there is [generally] one person, who made it happen. This is not a politically correct way of looking at organisation ‘transformations’ but there is always someone who acts the mitochondria in the cell that provides the energy to make that needed shift in direction.

‘Every organisation – every project – is influenced by a primary driving force. Some restaurants are chef-driven. Silicon Valley is often tech-driven. Investment firms in New York are money-driven, focused on the share price, or the latest financial manipulation.

The driver, whichever one you choose, is the voice that gets heard the clearest, and the person with that voice is the one who gets to sit at the head of the table’ writes Godin.

What do you see? Can you think of a radical performance improvement in Kenya that did not start with one person as the driving force?

Kenya will inject an extra $40 million (Sh5.2 billion) into the African Trade and Investment Development Insurance (ATIDI), more than doubling its stake in the quest for greater influence in mobilising billions of shillings for critical projects.

The additional investment will raise Kenya’s capital subscription in the African guarantee platform from $25 million (Sh3.2 billion) to $65 million (Sh8.4 billion), President William Ruto announced on Tuesday.

‘We thank ATIDI for supporting Kenya’s development journey by over $7 billion in investments in energy, transport, manufacturing, agriculture, and trade sectors,’ President Ruto said in a post the X social media platform.

‘To deepen that partnership, Kenya will progressively increase shareholding in ATIDI from $25 million to $65 million as we strengthen the continent’s financial institutions to fund the future.’

The move strengthens Kenya’s position in one of Africa’s fastest-growing multilateral financial institutions as governments increasingly turn to regional lenders and insurers to finance development amid tighter global credit markets.

ATIDI insures investors and lenders against political, sovereign and commercial risks that often discourage financing for projects across African countries.

The guarantees reduce investment risks, allowing banks, insurers and development finance institutions to lend more confidently to businesses and governments undertaking large projects.

The role has become increasingly important as African economies grapple with rising borrowing costs, tighter international financial conditions, as well as reduced appetite for lending to emerging markets. Since its establishment in 2001, ATIDI has supported trade and investment transactions worth more than Sh1.2 trillion ($93 billion) across Africa.

Kenya has emerged as one of the institution’s biggest beneficiaries since joining the institution more than two decades ago.

Beyond buying additional shares in the organisation, Kenya’s increased investment also secures the country greater influence in a body playing an increasingly central role in determining how investment risks across Africa are assessed and financed.

The announcement comes as ATIDI itself expands rapidly through fresh capital injections from governments and international development finance institutions.

Last month, the African Development Bank approved a $125 million (Sh16.2 billion) equity investment to strengthen the institution’s balance sheet and expand its capacity to support investments across member countries.

Germany’s development bank KfW has also invested fresh capital as ATIDI broadens its shareholder base and underwriting capacity.

The additional capital enables the institution to guarantee larger transactions while supporting more investment projects across African economies.

It also reflects Nairobi’s growing ambition to position itself as a leading financial hub for African investment.

The Office of the Attorney-General has been accused of presiding over a recruitment scam that saw candidates who never applied for jobs hired alongside those lacking the required academic qualifications, in a damning verdict that exposes deep-rooted irregularities in public sector hiring.

An independent audit by the Public Service Commission (PSC) found that the State Law Office-mandated to advise the government on legal matters and uphold the rule of law-breached multiple constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements governing public sector recruitment.

The audit followed an order issued by the Employment and Labour Relations Court on May 29, 2025, directing the PSC to investigate, monitor and evaluate the organisation, administration and personnel practices in the Office of the Attorney-General.

The court ordered the commission to file its report by December 31, 2025.

The audit paints the picture of a State institution where recruitment procedures were routinely disregarded, with the PSC concluding that appointments were made outside the constitutional and statutory framework governing public service recruitment.

Among the gravest findings was that some successful candidates were appointed despite not appearing in the original long list of applicants, which means they never applied for the advertised positions.

Others were shortlisted and eventually hired despite lacking the mandatory academic and professional qualifications required in the job advertisements.

“There were candidates who were shortlisted, yet they did not meet the shortlisting criteria as per the advertisements and others were shortlisted yet they had not applied for the jobs as they were not in the long list,” said PSC chairperson Francis Meja in a report dated June 30, 2026, and seen by the Business Daily.

“There were candidates who were appointed and yet they were not in the long list or they did not provide the requisite academic and professional qualifications at the point of application,” added the report.

The recruitment under scrutiny was conducted through advertisements published between April and June 2024, with the main State Counsel II vacancies advertised on April 15, 2024, and closing on May 21, 2024.

The PSC found that at least 18 shortlisted Legal Clerk Assistant IV candidates and 27 shortlisted State Counsel II candidates did not meet the advertised qualification threshold.

It further established that 14 Legal Clerk Assistant IV candidates and eight State Counsel II candidates appeared in the recruitment process despite not being on the original long list of applicants.

The report also found that seven candidates for the position of State Counsel II were appointed despite lacking qualifications such as a Bachelor of Law degree, a postgraduate diploma from the Kenya School of Law or a certificate of admission as an advocate.

Twelve Legal Clerk Assistant IV candidates were similarly approved despite lacking mandatory qualifications, including computer proficiency certificates.

The audit further uncovered major procedural flaws.

The interview panel did not indicate the pass mark, failed to rank candidates and did not explain the basis upon which successful applicants were recommended for appointment.

The final appointment list submitted to the Attorney-General omitted interview scores, the selection criteria and the pass mark used to determine successful candidates.

In addition, the PSC found that different versions of applicant lists were used during recruitment, with one list capturing applicants’ qualifications while another omitting them.

The commission also established discrepancies between the number of applicants on the original long list and those who eventually appeared on the shortlist, raising questions about the integrity of the recruitment records.

The commission warned that shortlisting, interviewing and appointing candidates who lacked the requisite qualifications undermined service delivery, exposed public funds to misuse and eroded confidence in merit-based recruitment.

It also cautioned that failure to observe ethnic diversity in appointments risked breeding perceptions of discrimination and weakening public trust in government institutions.

The findings reinforce concerns raised by the Employment and Labour Relations Court when it nullified more than 200 promotions undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Office in late 2024.

In the May 29, 2025 judgment, Justice Byram Ongaya ruled that the promotions had been undertaken without competitive recruitment and failed to satisfy constitutional requirements on merit, gender and ethnic diversity.

The court also declared unconstitutional amendments introduced through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2024, that had transferred some of the PSC’s constitutional human resource functions to the Attorney-General.

Justice Ongaya held that the Advisory Board established under the Office of the Attorney-General Act lacked legal authority to appoint or promote officials and directed that all appointments and promotions be undertaken through fair competition under the PSC.

He further ordered the PSC to investigate the organisation, administration and personnel practices at the State Law Office, culminating in the latest audit.

The revelations come less than three years after the PSC launched a government-wide purge of public officials who secured jobs and promotions using forged academic and professional certificates.

At the time, the commission directed ministries, departments and agencies to dismiss officials found to have used fake credentials, declaring such appointments null and void and recommending criminal investigations where fraud was established.

Despite being the heartbeat of local commerce and accounting for the vast majority of new jobs created annually, micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) remain trapped in a severe credit crunch.

Data from the revised MSME policy review reveals that small businesses require roughly Sh4 trillion in market loans to sustain and expand their operations. Yet, commercial banks currently supply only Sh700 billion.

This massive funding gap highlights the persistent barriers that local entrepreneurs encounter when trying to access formal credit. The root cause of this deficit lies in an exclusionary financial framework.

Traditional banking models rely heavily on physical collateral and formal records, yet because many local enterprises operate in the informal or semi-formal sectors, they often lack fixed assets and extensive financial histories.

Consequently, traditional lenders mistakenly view these viable Kenyan enterprises as high-risk.

Without urgent policy interventions to correct this issue, the growth of the informal sector will remain constrained, ultimately stifling broader national economic progress.

A critical flaw in the current financial ecosystem is the tendency to treat all MSMEs as a single, homogenous block. Small businesses do not require uniform credit facilities; their needs vary drastically across sectors.

Retailers require rapid, short-term cash injections to secure inventory. Agricultural players need structured facilities tied explicitly to seasonal harvesting timelines. Logistics operators demand heavy asset-financing options to procure delivery fleets.

To bridge this operational divide, lenders must restructure how they evaluate creditworthiness. Financial institutions must adopt alternative credit scoring models, that assess real-time cash flows, mobile money transaction patterns, and localised consumer behavior instead of demanding fixed, physical assets.

For decades, banking programmes targeting small businesses were relegated to corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments or treated as charitable social initiatives. This patronising outlook must end.

Serving the informal and semi-formal sectors represents a highly competitive, highly lucrative commercial segment.

Lenders must shorten their loan approval windows so business owners do not lose time-sensitive market opportunities. In the fast-moving informal market, a delayed loan approval is just as damaging as a denial.

Beyond merely shortening disbursement timelines, financial institutions must bundle credit with digital accounting tools and targeted education in tax planning and debt management. This support is critical to helping small businesses formalise their operations and build long-term, verifiable bankability.

By coupling structural, sector-specific lending with robust mobile cash management infrastructure, we can effectively help Kenyan businesses transition from daily hand-to-mouth survival to sustainable, long-term growth.

Indeed, policymakers and financial executives must act now, as bridging the Sh3.3 trillion gap is no longer just an act of economic inclusion, but an absolute economic imperative.

Across Africa, the conversation has shifted from “What is AI?” to “How can AI drive growth and profitability?” The answer is not more hype, generic training or simply deploying new software. It begins with leadership.

The organisations that will thrive will not necessarily be those experimenting with the most AI tools, but those that build AI into a core business capability.

That requires leaders to integrate AI into strategy, operating models, data readiness, cybersecurity, governance, talent, customer experience and measurable returns. These are executive decisions, not technology projects.

Success starts with asking the right questions. Which business processes should AI improve? Which decisions should it strengthen? What risks must be addressed before scaling? Most importantly, how will success be measured before an AI solution is deployed?

That final question is often overlooked, yet it distinguishes meaningful transformation from expensive experimentation. Launching an AI pilot is relatively easy; defining clear business outcomes in advance is much harder.

A finance team I recently advised illustrates the point. They wanted AI to accelerate invoice approvals and initially planned to automate the existing workflow. Before doing so, however, they examined where delays actually occurred. They discovered that many invoices passed through an approval stage created years earlier to address a risk that no longer existed.

The real solution was not AI but eliminating the unnecessary approval step.

Only after redesigning the process did the team introduce AI to automate a smaller, high-value task. Had they automated the original workflow, they would simply have made an inefficient process run faster while wasting time and money.

This is the lesson many organisations overlook. AI’s greatest value lies not in automating existing work, but in rethinking how work should be done. It forces leaders to question outdated processes, challenge assumptions and redesign operations around value rather than habit.

Ultimately, AI is not a technology conversation – it is a leadership conversation.

Organisations that approach it strategically, with clear objectives and disciplined governance, will achieve lasting competitive advantage.

Those that treat AI as just another software deployment risk spending heavily without transforming how they create value.

The World Bank Group has added Sh588 billion in securitised revenues and pending bills to Kenya’s debt stock, revealing a greater debt burden than that captured in official government data.

An analysis conducted by the World Bank in May 2026 shows that Kenya’s debt position has worsened, with the country’s public debt-to-GDP ratio of 71.3 per cent in 2025, up from 67.3 per cent previously.

The new assessment adds three parameters to Kenya’s debt assessment, including securitised future revenue streams, verified but unpaid pending bills and proceeds from privatisation programmes, which are treated as accumulated public liquid financial assets.

‘Kenya has securitised future revenue streams from three funds, raising approximately Sh383 billion, which has been included in the debt stock, though not yet in official statistics,’ the World Bank said.

‘Second, the Pending Bills Verification Committee has verified Sh255 billion in historic pending bills, of which Sh80 billion has been settled; the remaining verified stock is added to the DSA debt parameter. Third, approximately Sh350 billion in privatisation proceeds will seed the new National Infrastructure Fund (NIF) and is treated as an accumulation of public liquid financial assets.’

The National Treasury has committed future collections from certain revenue streams to help fund infrastructure projects and clear arrears to suppliers, including tapping Sh7 of every Sh25 collected from the sale of petrol and diesel through the Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) and Sh9 out of every Sh10 collected from the Railway Development Levy (RDL).

Additionally, Kenya has ring-fenced part of the nearly Sh5 billion collected annually through the tourism levy to partly repay private investors financing hotels and commercial facilities for the ongoing development of the Bomas International Convention Complex.

The securitised proceeds from the Road Maintenance Levy are expected to repay bond investors providing Sh175 billion through a bond to clear pending bills in the road sector, while revenues from the Railway Development Levy will repay investors financing the extension of the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) from Suswa/Naivasha to Malaba.

Kenya has previously disputed the categorisation of securitised revenue as part of debt, arguing that the special purpose vehicles (SPVs), which hold the proceeds from those revenues, are independent of the sovereign.

‘The issue of securitisation is not that the IMF thinks it’s the wrong idea. They are supporting securitisation, saying it is one of the most innovative ways of raising funds,’ said National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi.

‘The concern is an accounting matter on whether we should capture it as sovereign debt or not. Our position as the government is that once you sell a right to an SPV, there is no risk to the government at all.’

The IMF argues that the securitisation of future revenue should either be treated as a loan to the securitisation unit or as direct government borrowing.

The IMF also recommends that debt arising from financial leases and public-private partnerships (PPPs) be included in Kenya’s debt stock.

The IMF wants pending bills, infrastructure funds from securitisation and non-guaranteed loans by State corporations of more than Sh1 trillion to be included in public debt, continuing its disagreement with the National Treasury.

‘It is imperative that this scope of debt reporting is expanded to include a broader range of debt instruments; priority should be given initially to including other accounts payable, known in Kenya as pending bills,’ the IMF, which recently completed a review of public debt data, said in a technical report published in April.

‘Given that debt liabilities take different forms, and not just as loans or debt securities, it is imperative that the Kenyan government does not maintain only a narrow definition of public debt but establishes a clear mandate for the comprehensive reporting of all debt liabilities in line with international statistical standards.’

The World Bank assessed Kenya’s debt as high risk but sustainable in its May assessment, noting that the rating was contingent on the implementation of economically feasible policies.

‘Both external and overall public debt are rated at high risk of debt distress, in line with the mechanical signals,’ the World Bank added.

‘On external debt, the external debt service-to-exports ratio breaches its indicative threshold until the early 2030s, but solvency indicators remain below thresholds throughout the projection horizon.’

The multilateral lender lists downside risks to the debt assessment, including policy slippages ahead of the 2027 elections that could undermine investor confidence, geopolitical tensions, trade disruptions, volatile financing conditions, disease outbreaks and weather shocks.

Kenya’s official public debt stock stood at Sh12.83 trillion at the end of March, comprising Sh7.14 trillion in domestic debt and Sh5.68 trillion in external debt.

Across Africa, the conversation has shifted from “What is AI?” to “How can AI drive growth and profitability?” The answer is not more hype, generic training or simply deploying new software. It begins with leadership.

The organisations that will thrive will not necessarily be those experimenting with the most AI tools, but those that build AI into a core business capability.

That requires leaders to integrate AI into strategy, operating models, data readiness, cybersecurity, governance, talent, customer experience and measurable returns. These are executive decisions, not technology projects.

Success starts with asking the right questions. Which business processes should AI improve? Which decisions should it strengthen? What risks must be addressed before scaling? Most importantly, how will success be measured before an AI solution is deployed?

That final question is often overlooked, yet it distinguishes meaningful transformation from expensive experimentation. Launching an AI pilot is relatively easy; defining clear business outcomes in advance is much harder.

A finance team I recently advised illustrates the point. They wanted AI to accelerate invoice approvals and initially planned to automate the existing workflow. Before doing so, however, they examined where delays actually occurred. They discovered that many invoices passed through an approval stage created years earlier to address a risk that no longer existed.

The real solution was not AI but eliminating the unnecessary approval step.

Only after redesigning the process did the team introduce AI to automate a smaller, high-value task. Had they automated the original workflow, they would simply have made an inefficient process run faster while wasting time and money.

This is the lesson many organisations overlook. AI’s greatest value lies not in automating existing work, but in rethinking how work should be done. It forces leaders to question outdated processes, challenge assumptions and redesign operations around value rather than habit.

Ultimately, AI is not a technology conversation – it is a leadership conversation.

Organisations that approach it strategically, with clear objectives and disciplined governance, will achieve lasting competitive advantage.

Those that treat AI as just another software deployment risk spending heavily without transforming how they create value.

Insurer Britam plans to invest up to Sh1.9 billion ($15 million) in financial and insurance technology startups in Kenya and other markets where it operates, as it expands its venture capital arm amid increasing competition from non-traditional insurers.

Through its incubation hub BetaLab, the insurer plans to invest up to Sh1.9 billion in startups across the seven markets where it operates over the next four years, using a mix of equity and debt financing.