The men controlling public systems with billions

A recent audit has flagged a growing concern in Kenya: a handful of private firms are now managing critical public systems that handle billions of shillings of government revenue, and oversight of these arrangements is weak. According to the Office of the Auditor‑General, the contract for the Social Health Authority (SHA) system valued at KSh 104.8 billion over ten years is controlled by a private consortium that retains full ownership of its intellectual property, while the state does not fully own or control the system.
At the same time, the widely used digital service platform e‑Citizen, which generated over KSh 100 billion in one financial year, is run by private entities whose governance arrangements remain opaque.
The audit reveals that these systems were awarded through procurement processes that bypassed open competitive bidding, undermining transparency and value for money. For instance, the SHA contract was awarded under a Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure rather than a competitive tender, in violation of constitutional requirements.
In addition, the contracts contain clauses that prevent the government from developing or implementing competing systems, and any dispute resolution is directed overseas, away from Kenyan courts.
Consequently, large sums of public funds—intended for social health insurance, citizen services and revenue collection—are funnelled into systems outside full state control, raising risks of revenue leakage, data privacy vulnerabilities and weakened public oversight.
Reactions have been strong. Civil-society groups and opposition figures warn that this model amounts to a form of state capture, where private interests aligned with political power exercise control over public systems. A recent report by the African Development Bank estimated Kenya loses the equivalent of 5 % of its GDP annually through governance failures, corruption and misuse of public resources.
Meanwhile, government officials maintain that the systems will improve efficiency and that the upfront investment will be recouped over time. However, public trust remains fragile given the lack of clarity around ownership, control and accountability mechanisms.
Looking ahead, the issue has significant implications for Kenya’s governance and public finance. Unless oversight is strengthened and procurement made more transparent, the risk is that mounting public investments will benefit private entities more than the public good. The question now is whether the incoming reform agenda will insist on full state scrutiny of major systems, or whether these large-scale contracts will continue under the radar. Kenyan citizens and investors alike will be watching closely to see whether reforms follow words — or whether control remains concentrated in private hands.