Wananchi Opinion: Is Kenya’s growing reliance on PPPs good or just bad

Over the last two decades, Kenya has increasingly used PPPs to drive its development agenda and thus made them integral in most major infrastructure projects undertaken in the country.

At the moment, the country has approximately 37 active PPP projects, five of which have reached operation, while the rest are either under construction or at the feasibility study stage.

In the fiscal year 2025/26, the Ministry of Finance projects that it will raise approximately 293.6 billion Kenyan shillings through PPP arrangements, a factor indicating the rising importance of this model to a government struggling to meet its enormous infrastructure needs with very limited fiscal space.

The framework, which was officially adopted in 2013, has attracted about 145 billion Kenyan shillings of private investment.

Some 17.7 billion Kenyan shillings of this were invested in the fiscal year alone that will end in June 2025. Such partnerships have launched projects that otherwise may have been in limbo: housing, geothermal power plants, agricultural projects, and food security initiatives.

That's why the model of PPP is so alluring: it provides a chance for the government to engage in big projects without increasing the level of public debt significantly. But that is not all: PPPs generally come with more sophisticated technical capacity and higher levels of performance than conventional public works.

Large infrastructure projects-most of all highways-must be carefully engineered, have clear timelines, and get long-term maintenance. Private investors, who must recover their costs, tend to apply the standards with more rigor. This model also spreads the risk more evenly and reduces the load on taxpayers.

One ready case example is the soon-to-open Rironi-Nakuru-Mau Summit Expressway, which was financed under a Public-Private Partnership model, though the government insists it remains a public asset.

The private partner will finance and operate it, but the government retains responsibility for setting tolls, price adjustments, and exemptions for categories such as emergency services and local residents. In theory, these measures balance the efficiency of private initiatives with public accountability.

There are, however, also some thorny issues with PPPs: first, who pays the bill? Because investors have to get their money back and a profit, the public will need to pay it in tolls or user fees.

These can put a large burden on low-income households and on drivers in rural areas. The Motor Drivers Association of Kenya (MAK) criticised the road toll system Rironi-Nakuru-Mau Summit Expressway as exploitative and said that in the long run its cost fell squarely upon drivers and taxpayers.

This opinion is similar to the landmark Nairobi Expressway which is also a PPP model and has clearly achieved its primary goal of reducing travel time. Nonetheless, the benefits remain largely limited to those who can afford the tolls.

The other point of controversy is that of transparency. The PPP contracts are too complex and technical; the concerned information can barely be accessed by the public.

Without appropriate oversight, hidden clauses, revenue guarantees, or other provisions serving investor interests at the expense of the people may ensue.

The Kenya Motorists Association also points to this problem and argues that terms in the road contracts not disclosed could indirectly cost taxpayers future contracts.

A further set of financial risks is more general in nature. PPPs are often promoted as a way of avoiding direct public-sector borrowing, but even here there can be contingent liabilities: promises that would arise only under particular conditions-for example, if the project is not completed to specification or the private partner withdraws. These silently accrue, carrying their own financial risks at the end.

The other issue is that of equity: when it becomes imperative that services are dependent on users paying, as is the case with road, water, and house provisions, poor communities cannot participate in prices which are too high.

Furthermore, without proper protection of vulnerable groups, there is no likelihood of inequalities being reduced by PPP models; in fact, they may increase.

With all these challenges, however, PPPs remain one of the few viable tools in Kenya which can build large-scale infrastructure at the pace the country needs.

Additionally, there is a sufficient pipeline of projects, strong demand for the same, and adequate funding.

In sum, for PPPs truly to serve the public, rules are essential. Contracts must be transparent; fees and costs should be at just and reasonable levels. Social safety nets must be real and not just promises on paper.

The public needs to have a real say in major deals that will shape the country's development for coming decades.

PPPs are no magic bullet. But with political discipline, public oversight, and a commitment to equity, PPPs can help Kenya bridge its infrastructure gap.

Otherwise, they will exacerbate inequality, with public infrastructure becoming a luxury only a few can afford.

Brian Dibogo is a climate change crusader and sustainable finance practitioner.