Category: Business Daily

Digital marketplaces will have to police pesticide sales if a new Bill before the National Assembly is passed.

The Pest Control Products Bill, tabled by Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, will require platforms to verify that every pesticide seller is certified and every product listed online is registered with a new proposed Authority.

The proposals target loopholes that have allowed uncertified dealers to exploit digital platforms.

‘No person shall offer an online platform for the sale, advertisement, or marketing of pest control products unless that person ensures that persons using the platform are certified by the authority and the pest control products are registered by the Authority in accordance with this Act,’ reads the Bill, which proposes a fine of up to Sh50,000, a imprisonment for up to six months or both as punishment.

Regulatory systems

The requirement means that digital marketplaces must now integrate verification systems capable of authenticating seller certification details and product registration status, significantly reshaping how online platforms manage agricultural chemical listings across Kenya.

Digital platforms will need to align their onboarding processes with regulatory systems to automatically validate product registration data, preventing uncertified individuals from listing unregistered pesticides within Kenya’s online marketplaces.

The draft law seeks to establish the Pest Control Products Authority, whose tasks will include registering products, licensing dealers, enforcing standards, and oversight across the pesticides ecosystem.

The authority will maintain national registers of certified dealers, approved products, licensed premises, and inspection outcomes, enhancing oversight and strengthening traceability across all pesticide transactions.

If enacted, the legislation will impose mandatory certification for pesticide handlers, including manufacturers, formulators, distributors, and retailers, , creating a uniform licensing structure to strengthen national control over pesticide handling.

County governments will get powers to inspect dealers and monitor pesticide movements, collaborating with national regulators to suppress illegal circulation.

Further, the Bill requires the listing of approved waste facilities, structured disposal procedures, and coordinated monitoring to prevent unsafe dumping of expired pesticides.

The new law will authorise scientific re-evaluation of pesticides, allowing regulators to restrict or withdraw products when new evidence shows unacceptable health risks, environmental harm, or failure of mitigation measures, introducing sweeping obligations that place compliance responsibilities directly on online platforms

Kenya Power has been ordered to pay a Nyeri couple Sh20 million in damages after the Environment and Land Court found the utility firm guilty of trespassing and erecting high-voltage power lines on their private land without consent.

The judgment concluded a legal dispute that began in 2021, when the couple sued the electricity distributor over their land parcel in the Mweiga/Thungari area.

The couple purchased the property in 2012 intending to construct executive and affordable residential houses, but the project was allegedly frustrated by the utility firm’s actions. They told the court that they were finalising architectural drawings in 2014 when workers from Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) Limited now Kenya Power Company, entered the land and installed live electric cables and electricity poles without permission.

They argued that this made it impossible to proceed with the planned development and sought Sh71.7 million in compensation, along with an unspecified amount in general damages for trespass. They submitted photographs to support their claim.

Additionally, they requested an order compelling Kenya Power to remove the offending posts and electric cables from the land.

The court found that the company had neither sought nor obtained permission before entering the land, surveying it, or erecting the power infrastructure-actions that contravened the Energy Act.

The court stated that the law clearly prohibits anyone from entering another’s land to lay electric supply lines without first notifying the owner and obtaining written consent.

‘In this matter, there was no demonstration on the part of the defendant that it had sought or received permission from the plaintiffs to survey and use their land to lay electric power lines before erecting them. The conclusion can only be one,’ the court said.

The court noted that Kenya Power’s own documents proved the trespass.

A March 2021 letter from the company’s Nyeri County Business Manager admitted that its technical team had visited the site and confirmed the power line ‘had been constructed about half a meter inside your land.’

The court questioned how Kenya Power later produced witnesses who claimed the lines lay outside the property.

Two company witnesses testified that they had visited the property to determine the location of what they referred to as KPLC’s medium-voltage electricity poles and lines relative to the property boundaries.

They asserted that the medium-voltage lines were on the road reserve outside the property, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim, and that only low-voltage lines serving the property lay within its boundaries.

However, the court dismissed their testimony, stating that the witnesses ‘were being very economical with the truth’ after failing to involve the landowners in a site visit that contradicted an earlier official admission.

The court also criticised the company for conducting a unilateral survey of the land in 2023 without inviting the landowners.

In their claim, the couple had also sought reimbursement for professional architectural fees and projected profits lost due to the stalled housing project. However, the court dismissed these financial claims as speculative. It ruled that the professional fee note the first plaintiff issued to himself-addressed to both his Kenyan address and his own American firm-lacked credibility.

‘I was unprepared to accept that the first plaintiff could sit somewhere, dream of a project that had not been approved by any authority, and claim he was entitled to charge fees to himself,’ the court stated.

The court took a similar stance on the alleged loss of profit, stating that it lacked factual or actuarial basis.

The judge noted that trespass to land is actionable even without proof of specific damage. Citing legal precedents, he emphasised that damages depend on the circumstances of each case.

The court noted that Kenya Power had been aware of the trespass for years but failed to rectify it despite receiving complaints and admitting fault in writing.

‘In the circumstances, this court awards general damages in the sum of Sh20 million,’ the court ruled.

It also issued an order compelling Kenya Power to remove the offending posts and electric cables from the land and directed the company to bear the full cost of the suit.

Political interference and weak corporate governance have turned Kenya’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) into hubs of inefficiency, forcing them to rely on taxpayer money, and creating an environment where, warns the World Bank, ‘these firms are shielded from market rules that apply to other players.’

In the latest Kenya Economic Update report, the World Bank describes these SEO as outfits often steered by short-term political priorities and ministerial interests.

The international lender has also criticised performance-contracting system for SOEs saying it lacks real discipline.

Although the National Treasury sets KPIs (key performance indicators) and targets, these targets are not aligned with private-sector standards and therefore do not impose meaningful financial pressure on SOEs.

The World Bank says there is virtually no accountability for failure.

‘While performance bonuses for directors and executives are contingent upon meeting KPI targets, failure to do so is not generally considered grounds for removal,’ it adds.

The World Bank warns of extensive conflict of interest with ministries responsible for setting policy in a sector being the very same institutions that sit on the boards of the SOEs operating in that sector.

‘Line ministries act both as policymakers for the whole sector and shareholders of selected companies,’ added the World Bank.

For example, Kenya Airways has a board member representing the Ministry of Roads and Transport, with the Principal Secretary for Aviation serving as a director.

Similarly, Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) and KenGen have a board representative from the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum.

Now, the World Bank wants the government to enhance governance of SOEs to enhance competitiveness.

‘Kenya should ensure that subsidies and grants to SOEs are tied to clear public policy objectives and measurable outcomes,’ said the World Bank.

Kenya’s state owned enterprises (SOEs) are not operating efficiently because of weak governance and political interference, the World Bank has warned. The multilateral lender says the firms perform poorly and rely heavily on taxpayer money to survive, creating a big financial burden on the country.

The World Bank has pointed out that governance in SOEs has created an environment where these firms are shielded from market rules that apply to other players leaving management unchecked and reducing their productivity.

This has seen these state run companies struggle to function like proper commercial entities and instead of being guided by efficiency, financial discipline, and long-term strategy, they are often steered by short-term political priorities and ministerial interests.

‘Kenya’s SOE governance arrangements create potential for SOEs to be insulated from market discipline, leading to poor performance. Kenyan SOEs are often insulated from market discipline, reducing incentives for them to become more productive,’ said the World Bank in the latest Kenya Economic Update report.

The International lender has also criticized Kenya’s performance-contracting system for SOEs saying it lacks real discipline.

Although the National Treasury sets KPIs (key performance indicators) and targets, these targets are not aligned with private-sector standards and therefore do not impose meaningful financial pressure on SOEs.

The World Bank says there is virtually no accountability for failure and while executives and board members can earn bonuses for meeting targets, they face almost no consequences when they fall short.

Poor performance is not treated as grounds for removal, and leadership rarely changes even when results are consistently weak.

‘Kenya’s National Treasury (NT) entered into performance contracts with SOEs based on key performance indicators (KPI) and related targets.However, there is no systematic guidance that financial targets commensurate with private sector benchmarks be achieved,’ said the World Bank.

‘Furthermore, while performance bonuses for directors and executives are contingent upon meeting KPI targets, failure to do so is not generally considered grounds for removal.’

The World Bank says that the government ministries responsible for setting policy in a sector are the very same institutions that sit on the boards of the SOEs operating in that sector resulting in a conflict of interest.

In Kenya, government ministries often sit on the boards of state-owned enterprises, blurring the line between policymaking and commercial oversight.

For example, Kenya Airways has a board member representing the Ministry of Roads and Transport, with the Principal Secretary for Aviation serving as a director.

Similarly, Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) and KenGen have a board representative from the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum, specifically the Principal Secretary of the State Department of Energy.

‘Kenyan SOEs’ governance structures may cause conflict of interest between policy, political and commercial objectives since line ministries act both as policymakers for the whole sector and shareholders of selected companies,’ added the World Bank.

The World Bank has called for the government to enhance governance of SOEs in a bid to also enhance competitiveness in various industries.

‘Enhancing governance of SOEs to establish competitive neutrality: Kenya should ensure that subsidies and grants to SOEs are tied to clear public policy objectives and measurable outcomes,’ said the World Bank.

The High Court has issued a landmark judgment curtailing the powers of the Attorney General (AG) and the State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC) in human resource matters affecting State corporations and public universities.

The court on Friday nullified a July 2023 advisory issued by the Attorney General and a subsequent circular by the State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC), which sought to remove State corporations from the control of the Public Service Commission (PSC) because they are not part of the ‘public service’.

According to court papers, this position effectively suggested that the PSC has no constitutional mandate over the State Corporation’s human resource policies, establishment structures, or appointments.

However, the court has declared that both offices-AG and SCAC- had unlawfully encroached on the constitutional mandate of the PSC. The court said their interventions were unconstitutional.

It stated that both offices violated the constitutional mandate of the PSC by attempting to control human resource policies in the parastatal sector.

There are 280 operational State Corporations in the country, according to the Inspectorate of State Corporations, and 38 public universities, according to the Commission for University Education.

The court found that the AG’s advisory letter, which was endorsed by SCAC a month later through a circular in August 2023, sought to usurp the PSC’s authority over personnel management in State corporations.

The judgment emphasized that such actions violated Article 234 of the Constitution, which vests the PSC with exclusive powers to oversee human resource policies across the public service.

‘It is crystal clear to me that the advice given by the second respondent (Attorney General) does not meet the constitutional threshold and is therefore illegal, null, and void,’ the judge stated.

The ruling further noted that the AG’s advisory had disrupted the established governance framework, creating confusion in a sector already grappling with conflicting legal interpretations.

The case was filed by activist John Githongo and the Katiba Institute, who argued that the AG’s directive -asserting that the PSC lacked authority to determine terms of service for State corporations- was an unconstitutional overreach.

They said the Attorney General’s advisory and the follow-up circular from SCAC, undermined the Constitution and sowed confusion in a sector already struggling with competing legal interpretations.

The contested advisory, addressed to board chairpersons of all State corporations and copied to senior government officials, including the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Head of Public Service, claimed that human resource policies fell under the jurisdiction of Cabinet Secretaries working with SCAC.

The AG’s letter claimed that the PSC lacked jurisdiction to approve human resource policies for these entities. Instead, it vested this authority in the Cabinet Secretary and SCAC.

The court rejected this position, affirming that State corporations are integral to the public service and thus fall under the PSC’s regulatory oversight.

Citing Article 260 of the Constitution, the judge ruled that employees of State corporations are public officers, and their terms of service must conform to standards set by the PSC.

‘State corporations collectively fall within the Government of the Republic of Kenya, as captured under the definition of ‘public service’ in the Constitution,’ the judgment stated, adding that by quashing the two contested letters and reasserting PSC’s authority, the court was restoring clarity.

The court further dismissed attempts to justify SCAC’s role through the State Corporations Act, declaring Section 5(3) unconstitutional for seeking to exclude the PSC from its rightful functions. The court said the legal provision contravened the Constitution by attempting to strip the PSC of its mandated functions.

SCAC has no constitutional role in discharging this function,’ the court held, adding that its circular was ‘unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void from inception.’

The judgment also rebuked the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) for issuing direct advisories to State corporations, bypassing the PSC.

Describing such actions as ‘cheering anarchy,’ the court ruled that the SRC must channel all remuneration advice through the PSC to maintain constitutional order.

‘It is not permissible for SRC to bypass PSC in matters pertaining to terms and conditions of public service,’ the judge asserted.

Beyond nullifying the contested advisories, the ruling reinforced the PSC’s supremacy in approving organizational structures, staff establishments, and human resource manuals across public institutions. It clarified that State corporations and public universities are not autonomous in employment matters and must comply with PSC regulations.

Additionally, the court urged Parliament to amend outdated provisions of the State Corporations Act to align with constitutional provisions.

It stressed that constitutional powers vested in the PSC cannot be reassigned through legislation or executive directives. ‘Any interpretation suggesting otherwise is incorrect,’ the judge ruled.

The judgment also established a precedent on the legal weight of the AG’s opinions, stating that they are binding only in the absence of judicial interpretation.

The court said the Attorney General’s advice is binding on government organs unless overturned by a court and that they remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

The judge noted that the court’s intervention was necessary to stop the confusion caused by conflicting directives. It said this confusion had undermined the PSC’s constitutional mandate and risked destabilizing governance structures across State corporations.

Observing that the ruling resolves jurisdictional conflicts among government bodies, where overlapping directives from Cabinet Secretaries, SCAC, SRC, and the PSC created confusion in public administration, the court warned that allowing multiple centers of authority over human resource matters would erode Kenya’s constitutional framework.

‘Where is the consistency with Article 234 when the PSC is completely sidelined?’ the judge questioned.

The court noted that the judgment was to ensure that all State corporations and public universities operate under the PSC’s oversight.

Credit Bank Ltd can now proceed with the planned sale of a property in Upper Hill area -where Africa’s tallest building was to be built a few years ago- to recover a debt of more than Sh2 billion.

The lender got the nod to auction the property after its owners -One Upperhill Towers Ltd- failed to convince the Court of Appeal to suspend the forced sale.

In a ruling, the appellate court noted that although One Upperhill Towers Ltd had an arguable appeal, the loans granted to its sister companies -Jabavu Village Limited and Hasson Pharmaceuticals Limited- continued to grow and there was no evidence that the facilities were being serviced.

‘An injunction is an equitable remedy that a court can grant when it believes it is fair and appropriate. Secondly, where there is clear evidence that the applicant is in default, and the suit property herein was charged to secure the loan, the property becomes a commodity for sale upon the default,’ said the court.

The court added that the right of the bank to realise the security becomes established upon default.

‘From the material before us, the loan facilities had accumulated to $9,611,501.89 and $6,162,440.67 at the time the parties were before the superior (High) court. They certainly continue to grow. The fact that the applicant was heavily indebted to the 1st respondent (Credit Bank) is not in question,’ said the court.

The sale of the property had been stalled earlier by court injunctions as the company and its affiliates obtained court orders stopping the forced sale.

Evidence tabled in court stated that the lender granted loans amounting to Sh1.2 billion to Jabavu Village Limited and Hasson Pharmaceuticals Limited.

One Upper Hill Towers moved to court early this year contending that although the loan was being regularly serviced, the lender had instructed auctioneers to sell the property to recover the outstanding amounts.

The property owner submitted that the intended sale was malicious, unprocedural and unlawful as the mandatory provisions of the Land Act had not been followed, and its right to redeem the property was being compromised.

The lender opposed the case arguing that there was default in the repayment of the loan which led to the letter dated September 6, 2022 seeking the settlement of the outstanding arrears and the regularisation of the current account.

Credit Bank said when nothing was done to pay the arrears to regularise the current account, it went ahead and issued the statutory 90 days’ notice, which was followed by the 40 days’ notice under Section 96(2) of the Land Act with regard to the property.

The bank added that the property was valued and the notification of sale went out. In a ruling in February, the High Court dismissed the application but not satisfied, One Upperhill Towers ltd, moved to the Court of Appeal.

The appellate court ruled that Credit Bank is a bank, and if it turns out that the notices were not procedurally issued, the value of the property can be repaid.

‘In conclusion, we find that the application is not merited. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondents,’ ruled the court.

An administrator of the estate of the late Mombasa tycoon Tahir Sheikh Said (TSS) has lost an appeal challenging the striking out of a case she had filed against Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), regarding charges registered against two parcels of land in Malindi.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it found nothing upon which to fault the High Court for concluding that Ms Fatma TSS’s case was subjudice in two cases at the Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Malindi, thus not capable of being maintained.

‘The judge’s finding on this issue was well-grounded and by no means in error in view of the fact that she purported to litigate over the same issues, subject matter, and parties litigating in two previous suits currently pending determination in Malindi,’ ruled the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in its December 5 decision, ruled that Ms Fatma’s contention did not persuade it that allowing KCB’s application to strike out her case and an application (at the High Court) amounted to a denial of her constitutional right to a fair hearing.

‘Had the appellant desired to be granted audience to ventilate allegations of fraud and illegality stemming from alleged ‘new evidence,’ nothing would have been easier for her than to seek joinder as a plaintiff or interested party in either of the earlier cases and present evidence as may be necessary to prove claims pleaded in her case,’ ruled the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal further said that Ms Fatma would be more than welcome as a witness and close member of the deceased’s family to testify on any of the common issues raised in the cases.

It said that initiating a separate case in a different court over the same issues, parties, and subject matter was nothing short of an abuse of the court process.

‘We reach the inescapable conclusion that the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent (KCB),’ ruled the Court of Appeal.

Through her lawyer, Ms Fatma had told the Court of Appeal that the High Court misapprehended the law on res judicata (issue already decided) and that no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the plaintiffs in Malindi ELC cases were connected to her.

She said that the basis for her case was evidence of fraud relating to forged charge documents alleged to have been signed by the deceased (TSS) in the form of a forensic report produced in a criminal case. She argued that the new evidence could not have been available in the earlier cases.

KCB, through its lawyer, opposed the appeal, arguing that the High Court was correct in holding that Ms Fatma’s application was res judicata and that a comparison of the two applications revealed that the subject matter was the properties.

The lawyer also argued that applications related to the same borrowing/transaction secured by the charges created by the deceased in favour of KCB, and that the action which triggered all the cases was the commencement of realization of the securities by the bank.

At the High Court, Ms Fatma had sought a declaration that the charges created over the properties were forgeries, illegal, null, and void.

She wanted the order for the cancellation of the charges registered against the properties.

Ms Fatma also sought an injunction restraining the bank from selling, disposing of by public auction or otherwise, the properties.

However, KCB filed an application seeking that the case by Ms Fatma together with the ensuing proceedings be struck out on account of being sub judice to two cases at the ELC Malindi.

The High Court went on to strike Ms Fatma’s application as fatally incompetent on the grounds of res judicata and allowed KCB’s application.

Elon Musk’s satellite internet provider Starlink has finally regained the subscriptions it lost in Kenya when its capacity was strained, but it has yet to reclaim the market share it shed amid stiff competition from local firms.

In the quarter to September, Starlink added 2,045 new subscriptions, raising its total user base to 19,470 and surpassing the previous peak of 19,146 recorded in December 2024, which had given it a 1.1 percent share of Kenya’s fixed internet market.

Although this marks the fastest positive growth Starlink has reported in Kenya since January, the rebound has not lifted its market share, which had slipped to 0.8 percent in June after six consecutive months of declining subscriber numbers.

Data from the Communications Authority of Kenya shows that Starlink’s share of the fixed internet market stagnated at 0.8 percent in the quarter to September, tying with Vijiji Connect, as some local competitors expanded their presence.

Market leader, Safaricom, added 79,288 fixed internet customers during the period, raising its market share to 35.6 percent from 34.3 percent in June.

Others, including Jamii Telecoms (Faiba), Ahadi Wireless, Vilcom Network, and Mawingu, also significantly increased their subscriber numbers, strengthening their market positions and posing stiff competition to Starlink, which had disrupted the Kenyan internet market upon entry.

Overall, total fixed internet subscriptions in Kenya rose by 147,150 in the three months to September, from 2.14 million to 2.29 million, but more than half of the new customers joined Safaricom, with Starlink accounting for just 1.4 percent of the additions.

Starlink initially recorded rapid growth after entering the Kenyan market, claiming 0.5 percent market share by September 2024, and doubling it within three months.

However, this swift expansion strained its capacity, forcing the firm to pause new sign-ups in November 2024, not only in Kenya but also in other fast-growing African markets, including Nigeria and South Sudan.

With capacity stretched, Starlink’s browsing speeds in Kenya dropped to around 45 megabits per second (Mbps) from highs of over 200 Mbps when the firm launched in July 2023. The pause in new sign-ups, coupled with the sharp decline in speeds, caused the company to lose subscribers and market share.

In the quarter to March, Starlink’s users fell by over 2,000, while its market share dropped by 0.2 percentage points to 0.9 percent. In the quarter to June, its user base grew marginally by around 400, but its market share slipped further to 0.8 percent amid stiff competition from local players.

Meanwhile, the satellite internet segment has attracted new entrants, including Safaricom, which has partnered with Starlink as a reseller of its satellite internet in Kenya.

Courts will soon have more leeway to strike down contracts containing oppressive or excessively one-sided terms if Parliament passes the newly proposed law that could reshape business and consumer agreements across the country.

Parliament has received the Law of Contract (Amendment) Bill, 2025 which aims to give judges powers to intervene in agreements where one party is clearly at a disadvantage.

This will mark a departure from the current practice where several courts have ruled that it is not their business to rewrite contracts for individuals who commit to bad deals. For instance, any contract that absolves a party from liability for death caused by their negligence will be rejected. Likewise, sale agreements that seek to absolve the seller from responsibility if the goods prove defective will be struck out.

‘The principal object of this Bill is to amend the Law of Contract Act to protect parties to a contract against unfair and unconscionable terms,’ reads the memorandum of the Wajir East Constituency MP Aden Daudi Mohamed-sponsored bill.

‘The Law of Contract Act provides for the application of English common law principles in contract law which has resulted in the use of unfair and unconscionable terms. Therefore, the bill seeks to prevent parties from relying on such unfair and unconscionable terms.’

Passage of the bill into law could reshape how contracts are drafted, enforced and contested across sectors ranging from finance and real estate to retail and services.

Currently, the country’s contract law primarily follows the principles of English common law, which emphasises the doctrine of freedom of contract. Parties are generally bound by the terms they sign, and courts intervene only in exceptional circumstances such as duress, misrepresentation, undue influence or fraud.

Under the proposed law, judges would be able to invalidate or modify contract provisions that are deemed grossly unfair, thereby enhancing protections for consumers, small businesses and other vulnerable parties.

Parties to a contract will not be permitted to include terms that exclude or limit liability for death caused by negligence of the other party.

Similarly, any clause that seeks to exclude or restrict a party’s liability for loss or damage arising from their negligence will be invalid unless the term is reasonable.

The bill clarifies that where a term attempts to limit liability for loss or damage resulting from negligence, a person’s agreement to that term will not in itself amount to a voluntary acceptance of risk.

‘Where a contract term excludes or restricts liability for loss or damage resulting from negligence, an agreement to the term by a person shall not indicate the person’s voluntary acceptance of risk,’ reads the bill in part.

In contracts involving a consumer, the supplier will be barred from excluding or limiting liability for loss or damage caused by a breach of contract. The supplier will also not claim to be entitled to render a contractual performance that is ‘substantially different’ from which was ‘reasonably expected’ of them.

The bill also prohibits suppliers from drafting contracts that exclude them from liability in case they sell defective goods.

‘In the case of goods supplied for consumer use, liability for loss or damage shall not be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term contained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods where the loss or damage arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use; and results from the negligence of a person concerned in the manufacture or distribution of the goods,’ reads the bill in part.

The bill states that goods will be deemed to be in consumer use when a person is using them or possesses them for purposes other than exclusively for business.

Further, the bill says ‘anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or purports to contain a promise or assurance that defects will be made good by complete or partial replacement or by repair, monetary otherwise.’

About 63 percent of patients made out-of-pocket payments for medicines following stockouts in public and private health facilities between April and May 2025 after the US government withdrew funding to Kenya, a survey said.

The survey was conducted by the State-owned National Syndemic Diseases Control Council (NSDCC), and focused on evaluating the impact of service disruptions caused by the withdrawal of cash support by US President Donald Trump early this year.

NSDCC is mandated to manage syndemic diseases, including HIV, sexually transmitted infections, malaria, leprosy, tuberculosis, and lung disease. The survey revealed that the monthly average out-of-pocket spending on healthcare rose from Sh420 to Sh1,150-nearly a threefold increase that made healthcare unaffordable for many households.

The assessment, done in over 5,000 healthcare facilities across the country, also showed that about 18 percent of patients sold assets to pay for treatment, while others delayed care or abandoned treatment altogether.

For families already navigating economic pressures, the sudden shift from free or subsidized medicines to full retail prices has created impossible choices between medication, food, and school fees.

‘Furthermore, people living with HIV reported overwhelming fear (92 percent) of antiretroviral therapy interruption, with 18 percent resorting to selling assets just to afford their life-saving medications, highlighting the extreme financial and psychological burdens imposed,’ the report read.

The financial burden was severe for patients managing chronic conditions. Those living with HIV, who previously accessed antiretroviral therapy at no cost, faced increased monthly medicine bills that consumed a big portion of their household income.

Similar pressures affected TB patients and those who required long-term management of conditions like hypertension and diabetes.

Meanwhile, over 40 percent of public health facilities experienced drug and commodity stockouts during this period, especially the essential public health programmes, largely triggered by the sudden disruption of donor-funded procurement systems.

More than one-third of affected facilities reported stockouts of cotrimoxazole, a critical medicine for preventing opportunistic infections among people living with HIV.

HIV test kits were unavailable in 17 percent of facilities, which undermined early diagnosis and linkage to treatment. Tuberculosis services suffered similar disruptions, with nearly 15 percent of facilities lacking GeneXpert cartridges, delaying diagnosis and increasing the risk of undetected transmission.

The shortages expose how quickly Kenya’s medicine supply chains can fracture when donor-supported pipelines stall at a time when about 83 percent of counties rely entirely on the Kenya Medical Supplies Authority.

In malaria-endemic regions, 16.2 percent of facilities ran out of rapid diagnostic tests, forcing clinicians to rely on symptoms rather than a confirmed diagnosis. Reproductive health services were equally affected.

Family planning commodities were out of stock in 19 percent of disrupted facilities, while contraceptive implants were unavailable in 17.4 percent. Adolescents and young women were also affected, as they were turned away or offered substitute methods.

The elderly and people affected by chronic conditions are the worst hit by the OOP expenditure that has continued to rise over the years despite increased budgets by the State for healthcare.

On June 25, 2024, Kenya witnessed a moment that will be remembered for years to come.

Across cities and towns, a youthful voice rose, and it is undisputed that this Gen Z awakening was a powerful reminder that citizens expect fairness, accountability, and transparency in the management of public finances.

The moment challenged the way public policy is conceived, communicated, and executed. The protests were more than a reaction to specific tax proposals; they were a call for a new social contract, demanding that public sentiment serves as the compass guiding national decisions.

The rejection of key revenue measures forced a recalibration of Kenya’s fiscal framework. In response, the National Treasury unveiled MTP IV, 2023-27, initiating a fiscal consolidation agenda focused on broadening the tax base, reducing reliance on debt, and adopting innovative, sustainable approaches to financing national development.

This was not a mere technical adjustment but was a pivotal shift, aligning planning and resource mobilisation with economic realities and societal expectations, anchored in zero-based budgeting.

The government recognised the limits of fiscal headroom. The moment demanded decisive action that balanced prudence with innovation. From this assessment emerged a revitalised privatisation agenda.

Kenya’s development ambitions require capital volumes that borrowing and taxation alone cannot provide. Several State-owned enterprises had become persistent burdens on the Exchequer, underperforming despite repeated fiscal support.

Modernised privatisation offered a practical path to unlock dormant value, drive efficiency, and redirect resources toward transformative projects, creating fiscal space for sectors that directly impact citizens’ lives.

At this inflexion point, Kenya needed a vision grounded in courage and disciplined leadership.

The President’s State of the Nation Address on November 20, 2025, signalled precisely that. The Road to Singapore framework articulated by President William Ruto provides a benchmark for the discipline and ambition required to transform Kenya.

Singapore’s ascent rested on prudent financial management, targeted investment, and deep public trust. Kenya is embracing a similar ethos: resource discipline, long-term planning, and strategic capital allocation.

It is within this context that the State’s long-standing shareholding in Safaricom must be understood. Safaricom has been central to Kenya’s technological and economic ascent, delivering consistent dividends and bolstering national development.

Yet the current context requires a shift. Responsible stewardship sometimes necessitates releasing value to redirect it where it can generate the greatest national impact. The decision to partially divest the government’s stake in Safaricom reflects a measured, strategic transition.

This decision is neither abrupt nor politically motivated. It is informed by a sober evaluation of national priorities, fiscal constraints, and critical infrastructure needs. Kenya’s economic fundamentals remain solid, with projected growth of 5.3 percent in 2025.

Fiscal pressures, however, are significant. Public debt stands at about Sh10.6 trillion, or 68 percent of the gross domestic product. More than half of all tax revenue is consumed by debt servicing, limiting investment in healthcare, education, social protection, climate resilience, and essential infrastructure.

A responsible state cannot rely indefinitely on debt to finance development. Sustainable prosperity demands innovative, disciplined, and strategic fiscal choices.

The partial divestment from Safaricom is designed to unlock value and channel it to sectors with the highest multiplier effect. Kenya requires more than Sh 1.8 trillion in new infrastructure investment over the next five years to advance the Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda.

Roads, water systems, energy grids, digital infrastructure, and industrial parks form the backbone of a modern, competitive economy. Traditional financing has reached its limits and must be complemented through alternative mechanisms.

The Government is strengthening instruments that attract private capital while safeguarding national interests.

These include Public-Private Partnerships, blended finance models, and capital deployment through the twin funds: The National Infrastructure Fund and the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Resources released through divestment will be catalytic, enabling layered co-investments by local and international partners.

The aim is to translate fiscal prudence into productive power and turn disciplined financial management into tangible economic outcomes.

The partial divestment also responds directly to concerns Kenyans have voiced about the cost of living, public debt, and accountability. The Government has listened. It has chosen a path that expands domestic capital mobilisation, empowers local investors, and strengthens national ownership of development projects.

This approach signals a new public finance philosophy anchored in transparency, efficiency, and responsiveness to citizens.

Proceeds from the Safaricom divestment will flow transparently through the National Infrastructure Fund, complemented by the Sovereign Wealth Fund to preserve part of the value for future generations.

The Infrastructure Fund will invest in projects that expand opportunity, integrate markets, and strengthen competitiveness. Both Funds operate under robust governance and accountability frameworks to safeguard public value, and Parliament will ensure this.

Kenya’s progress has historically depended on citizens, institutions, and the private sector acting in concert.

The partial divestment is an invitation for all stakeholders, pension funds, county governments, diaspora communities, private investors, and citizens, to participate in building a resilient, competitive nation. The aim is to generate prosperity through shared responsibility and sustain it through disciplined national investment.

Kenya is not stepping back from past achievements. It is repurposing its successes to unlock new frontiers of opportunity.

The divestment represents a deliberate act of national renewal, aligning prudent financial management with long-term ambition. The moment for decisive action has arrived, and we must seize it with unity, resolve, and purpose.