Days after experts warned governance and board composition gaps could leave the proposed National Infrastructure Fund (NIF) Bill 2026 vulnerable to political interference and financial mismanagement, Opposition leaders have called on Parliament to summon Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi to clarify what they describe as contradictions surrounding the fund.
The Fund seeks to mobilise Sh5 trillion to support major infrastructure projects across energy, transport, logistics, and human capital development. The Bill aims to attract private capital by leveraging up to Sh10 for every shilling invested, but critics say it lacks clear safeguards for independent oversight and accountability.
Addressing the press on Thursday, Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka accused the Treasury chief of giving conflicting explanations about the legal and constitutional status of the multi-trillion shilling fund.
According to the opposition, statements Mbadi made before parliamentary committees differ from details contained in an affidavit he submitted in court.
“These concerns on NIF are directly confirmed by the conduct of John Mbadi, in an affidavit, consistently presenting the Fund to parliamentary committees as a public fund subject to parliamentary oversight,” Kalonzo said.
The opposition argues that while the Treasury presented the NIF to MPs as a constitutional public fund, the court affidavit suggests otherwise.
Kalonzo claimed the document indicates that the proposed National Infrastructure Fund is not a constitutional public fund as defined under Article 206 of the Constitution, but rather a limited liability company.
“This court affidavit revealed a whole contradictory reality. The entity is not a Fund within the meaning of Article 206 at all, but a limited liability company that had not even been incorporated when these assurances were being given to MPs,” he said.
The leaders also expressed concern that the entity had allegedly not been formally registered at the time Mbadi addressed Parliament about the fund’s structure.
The opposition said the issue raises serious constitutional and fiscal questions, given that the proposed fund is expected to manage about Sh5 trillion in public resources.
Kalonzo argued that any inconsistency in the information presented to Parliament undermines transparency and public accountability.
“As a CS who assures parliament of a Ksh5 trillion vehicle constitutional status, swears under oath, then misleads them, has not made a technical error. He has misled the legislature on a matter of the highest fiscal and constitutional consequence,” he said.
He urged the National Assembly to urgently summon the Treasury Cabinet Secretary to explain the discrepancies.
“The National Assembly must summon CS Mbadi to reconcile his parliamentary presentation with his court testimony,” Kalonzo said.
The National Infrastructure Fund has been proposed as a major financing vehicle to support large-scale infrastructure projects across the country, making clarity on its structure and oversight a key issue in Kenya’s public finance debate.
President William Ruto has stated that proceeds from the fund will be invested in projects that grow human capital, generate additional energy, and transform transport and logistics.
Seed capital is expected from the recently concluded IPO of Kenya Pipeline Company, projected to raise Sh106 billion, and the partial sale of a 15 per cent stake in Safaricom to South Africa’s Vodacom Group, expected to generate Sh244.5 billion, including an upfront dividend of Sh40.2 billion on the government’s residual 20 per cent stake.
However, Professional and industry groups have highlighted multiple weaknesses in the Fund. The Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) criticised Clause 5 for failing to protect the fund from political interference.
ICPAK also noted gaps in Clause 6 regarding board composition, pointing out the absence of experts in sustainability and independent financial oversight.
Auditor General Nancy Gathungu also expressed concerns over the proposed board, noting that “With the exception of the PS, the National Treasury, there is no requirement for the other Directors to have expertise in infrastructure development, including finance, economics, investment banking, and other related areas of expertise.” She further warned that Clauses 15 and 16 create parallel executive roles—a Chief Executive Officer appointed by the board and an administrator designated by the Cabinet Secretary under Section 24(5) of the Public Finance Management Act—which “is not aligned to the provisions of Section 24(4) of the PFM Act 2012.”
The Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) recommended a two-tier governance structure, introducing a Board of Trustees to serve as legal custodians of the Fund’s assets.
“The Trustees shall serve as the legal custodians of the Fund’s assets and cash, providing oversight and ring-fencing the money from diversion,” KAM said. “The board of directors shall remain responsible for technical investment decisions but must seek ‘custodial clearance’ from the trustees for all major disbursements. This separation improves governance by preventing concentration of authority in a single body and reducing the risk of conflicts of interest, operational interference, or weak oversight.”
Experts warn that unless the Bill is amended to include robust governance, oversight, and accountability measures, the Sh5 trillion National Infrastructure Fund could face political interference, financial mismanagement, and reduced impact on Kenya’s infrastructure development and industrial competitiveness.
