Inside court hurdles against Ruto's ambition to make Kenya first world

President William Ruto may not have his Singapore plans go the easy way after a twin challenge to the decision to set up Sh5 trillion infrastructure and sovereign funds was filed in court on Wednesday.

On one hand, Nakuru-based surgeon Gikenyi Magare, United Kingdom–based human rights defender Eliud Karanja Matindi, Philemon Nyakundi and Dishon Keroti filed a case against the Attorney General, the Treasury Cabinet Secretary, the Senate, the National Assembly and the Controller of Budget, arguing that the two funds were illegal and unnecessary.

Within the hour, the Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek) filed a separate case, claiming that establishing a limited liability company to run the sovereign fund was a move to circumvent oversight and public participation.

Cofek claimed that the move amounted to running government functions outside the Constitution.

Dr Ruto has claimed that he has a plan to put Kenya at the same level as Singapore. To achieve this, a sovereign fund and an infrastructure fund were created to allegedly ease the country’s thirst for internal and external loans for development.

In court, however, the group led by Dr Magare argued that, first, the infrastructure fund posed a threat to the Equalisation Fund. They added that the Executive had allegedly bypassed Parliament while establishing the two funds.

“Parliament (the National Assembly and the Senate) failed in its role by being a bystander while the Executive is purporting to create an ad hoc public fund. The impugned fund operates outside normal budgetary controls, resulting in reduced parliamentary oversight and accountability,” court documents filed before Justice Bahati Mwamuye read in part.

According to them, the Kenya Kwanza administration allegedly created an avenue for private individuals to illegally benefit from public coffers.

“Considering the current regime or government is known to be finger-itchy with the sale of public assets, as witnessed in the sale of Safaricom PLC shares and the attempted sale of Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC), it is reasonable to believe that these actions are part of a wider scheme to enrich shadowy figures within government circles for political and economic gain, contrary to the principles of good governance as provided under Articles 1, 3, 10, 73, 75 and 232(1)(e) of the Constitution (2010),” the court papers continue to read.

In his supporting affidavit, Dr Gikenyi said that the government has no power to create a private company to run and spend taxpayers’ money.

He asserted that no one knows how the shareholding will be allocated or who will oversee or audit the affairs of the company.

In the separate case, Cofek argued that there was no justification for the government to entrust private individuals with managing the funds.

The Stephen Mutoro–led lobby claimed that the Treasury Cabinet Secretary had failed to disclose critical information, including the shareholding structure, identity of private beneficiaries, and governance and profit-allocation arrangements, thereby aggravating the risk of misuse of public wealth.

In his supporting affidavit, Mutoro said that the Dr Ruto–led government had put the cart before the horse, as the two funds are allegedly not anchored in law. He added that there was no public participation before the decision was made.

“Unless this honourable court intervenes urgently, the respondents are likely to proceed with incorporation, appointment of directors and management, execution of contracts, and commitment or transfer of public resources, thereby creating irreversible legal and fiscal consequences, posing a grave threat to Kenya’s constitutional order, fiscal discipline, debt sustainability and inter-generational equity, and occasioning irreparable public harm, while no prejudice will be suffered by the respondents from temporary restraint,” Mutoro argued.

He stated that the creation of such parallel funds breaks fiscal transparency, weakens expenditure control, exposes public resources to misuse and debt opacity, and exposes Kenyans to liabilities beyond parliamentary visibility.

On November 15, 2025, the Cabinet approved the National Infrastructure Fund with the intent of mobilising at least Sh5 trillion.

However, Cofek argued that the devil was in the details, as money can only be appropriated after being budgeted for by Parliament. According to the lobby, once money leaves government coffers for private hands, it ceases to be taxpayers’ money.

“I am further advised, and verily believe, that once public resources are transferred into a private corporate vehicle, such resources risk losing their public character, existing constitutional oversight mechanisms become diluted or extinguished, and public access to information, audit scrutiny and accountability become severely constrained,” Mutoro argued.

The petitioners want the court to halt the implementation of the funds or the creation of the company until the cases are heard and determined.