By Isaac Dan Bw’Onyancha
President William Ruto’s proposal to establish a National Infrastructure Fund is framed as a bold pathway to transform Kenya into Africa’s Singapore. The promise is attractive. Modern roads, railways, ports and energy systems appeal to a country eager for visible progress. Yet the real danger is not in building infrastructure. It is in the method being suggested to finance it.
Funding infrastructure by selling or leveraging national assets outside the normal budget process is like losing a cow to buy milk. You solve an immediate need by destroying the very source that sustained you. A port, a utility, or public land generates value year after year. Once sold or mortgaged, the cash is spent quickly, but the asset is gone permanently. What remains is maintenance costs, higher tariffs and eventually more borrowing.
Also Read
This approach is not development. It is cannibalism. The state begins to consume its own organs to appear functional. Each asset sold finances another project, which then demands yet another sacrifice. The economy survives by eating itself, weaker with every bite.
There is also a serious democratic deficit. The national budget is the main avenue through which citizens participate in deciding how public resources are raised and spent. When infrastructure financing is shifted into special funds operating outside the budget, public participation becomes symbolic or disappears altogether. Communities are not consulted on which assets should be sold, which projects should be prioritised, or what risks are being transferred to future generations. Development is done to the people, not with them, undermining the very constitutional principle that sovereignty belongs to the people.
Supporters of the fund often point to Singapore as inspiration. The comparison is misleading. Singapore did not develop by selling its strategic assets to fund projects. It built strong institutions, enforced fiscal discipline and protected public control over critical sectors. Kenya cannot skip these fundamentals and expect the same outcome.
Off budget financing also creates fertile ground for abuse. Asset values can be understated. Buyers can be well connected. Projects can be overpriced. When money does not pass through the normal budget and audit systems, corruption finds room to operate. Kenya’s history offers enough warnings on this front.
In simple terms, this strategy resembles selling the roof to buy new furniture. The house may look impressive inside, but it is now exposed to the storm. Infrastructure built on surrendered assets, weakened oversight and excluded citizens does not strengthen the nation. It hollows it out.
Kenya does not need dramatic shortcuts to development. It needs honest budgeting, clear priorities and genuine public participation. Transformation is not about speed or spectacle. It is about building without consuming the foundations that hold the country together.
If we are not careful, in the rush to look like Singapore, Kenya may end up devouring itself.
About the author: Isaac Dan Bw’Onyancha is a critical analyst on governance, leadership and public policy matters with a strong focus on active public participation.
