Kenya’s Billions Under the Microscope: What Nyakang’o and Gathungu’s Reports Reveal About Public Money

 CIVICLENS GAZETTE

Friday, 17 September 2026

By CivicLens Gazette Desk

What happens when a government says it is tightening its belt, yet billions of shillings continue to move through emergency spending, travel, loans and projects that have stalled? That is the question now sitting at the centre of Kenya’s public finance debate after Controller of Budget Dr Margaret Nyakang’o raised fresh concerns about government expenditure, while Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu’s audits have separately pointed to stalled projects, financial control weaknesses and questions surrounding the management of public funds.

Put the two watchdog reports side by side and the story becomes much bigger than a collection of accounting figures.

It becomes a story about how Kenya plans its money, how government departments spend it, how borrowed funds are used, and what taxpayers ultimately receive in return.

Nyakang’o’s latest budget implementation findings have placed particular attention on the growing use of Article 223 of the Constitution, a provision designed to allow the government to respond to urgent and unforeseen expenditure.

The concern is not that Article 223 exists. Kenya needs a mechanism for genuine emergencies.

The question is how often it is being used, and whether every expenditure presented under that provision genuinely meets the test of being urgent and unforeseen.

According to reporting based on the Controller of Budget’s findings, expenditure through Article 223 reached Sh209.37 billion in the 2025/26 financial year, compared with Sh66.54 billion in the previous year.

Over a four-year period, expenditure under the provision has reportedly reached about Sh364.24 billion.

Those are not small numbers.

And behind every billion is a question about planning.

Article 223 is meant to provide flexibility when circumstances arise that could not reasonably have been anticipated during the preparation of the annual budget. But Nyakang’o’s office has raised concerns over instances where the mechanism has been used for expenditure that could have been anticipated and included in the normal budget process.

That matters because Kenya’s budget is not merely a financial document.

It is also a system of accountability.

Parliament approves government expenditure through the budget process, and the more money that is introduced through exceptional mechanisms, the more important it becomes to understand why those mechanisms were necessary.

Treasury reportedly accounted for Sh148.2 billion of the Article 223 expenditure during the year under review.

The figure puts the debate into perspective.

This is not simply about a technical constitutional provision. It is about the scale of public money being moved through a route intended for exceptional circumstances.

Then there is the government’s travel bill.

According to the Controller of Budget, the national government spent Sh30.69 billion on travel during the 2025/26 financial year.

Domestic travel accounted for Sh21.98 billion, while foreign travel consumed another Sh8.71 billion.

The total was higher than the previous year's Sh25.45 billion.

Travel, of course, is part of government work. Officials have to move. Ministers attend meetings. Public servants inspect projects, participate in negotiations, represent Kenya abroad and carry out administrative duties across the country.

The issue is therefore not whether government officials should travel.

The more important question is whether the level of spending is consistent with the country’s wider fiscal pressures.

According to reports based on the Controller of Budget’s findings, State House was among the institutions recording significant travel expenditure, with about Sh2.5 billion reported.

The State Department for Internal Security and National Administration spent about Sh1.4 billion, while the State Department for Immigration and Citizen Services recorded approximately Sh1.1 billion.

Government expenditure on hospitality also deserves attention.

About Sh11.72 billion was reportedly spent on hospitality, including tea and refreshments.

Together, travel and hospitality spending therefore ran into more than Sh42 billion during the financial year.

Again, the figures do not automatically establish that the money was unlawfully spent.

That distinction is important.

Public finance reporting must separate an audit query, a budget concern and evidence of criminal wrongdoing. They are not the same thing.

What the figures do provide is a basis for asking whether government departments are exercising sufficient spending discipline while Kenya faces a significant debt burden.

And that debt burden has become impossible to ignore.

Kenya’s public and publicly guaranteed debt stood at approximately Sh13.01 trillion as of June 30, 2026, according to figures presented by the Controller of Budget.

The debt-to-GDP ratio was reported at 68.5 per cent, above the 55 per cent level referenced in the Controller of Budget’s report.

Nyakang’o has called for reduced borrowing as the country continues to deal with debt-service obligations and fiscal pressures.

But there is another side to Kenya’s borrowing story that deserves a closer look.

The country can borrow money and still fail to use it quickly.

During the 2025/26 financial year, external loans worth approximately Sh764.80 billion were reportedly disbursed, while about Sh1.277 trillion remained undisbursed.

That creates a peculiar situation.

Money has been negotiated and made available for development, yet some of it remains unused.

And unused financing can still carry costs.

Kenya has incurred commitment fees on loans that lenders have made available but which the government has not drawn down.

The Controller of Budget has linked the problem to issues including delays in project preparation and implementation.

For taxpayers, the question is straightforward.

If the country is paying for access to borrowed money, how quickly should that money be turned into functioning projects?

That question takes us directly to the Auditor-General.

Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu’s audit findings provide another window into the management of public resources.

Among the findings reported from the 2024/25 audit cycle are stalled government projects worth approximately Sh31.2 billion across different sectors.

About Sh7.4 billion had reportedly already been paid to contractors connected to projects that remained incomplete or stalled.

Again, the figures require context.

A stalled project is not necessarily evidence that money has been stolen.

Projects can be delayed by disputes, procurement challenges, changes in scope, financing problems, land issues, contractor difficulties or other circumstances.

But once public money has been committed and a project fails to deliver within the expected period, the issue becomes one of value for money.

A hospital that remains incomplete cannot treat the patient who needs it.

A market that remains unfinished cannot serve the trader who was promised a place to do business.

A road that remains stalled cannot solve the transport problem it was intended to address.

This is where the Auditor-General’s work becomes particularly important.

The Office of the Auditor-General is not simply counting government expenditure. Its audits examine financial records, compliance and the management of public resources.

Its findings can identify weaknesses that require explanations, corrective action or further scrutiny.

The same principle applies to audit queries involving public schools.

Auditor-General reports have previously raised questions about payments made by schools to organisations outside the normal government framework, including payments to the Kenya Secondary School Heads Association.

In one audit concerning PCEA Kikuyu High School, the Auditor-General questioned a Sh650,700 transfer to KESSHA from co-curricular funds.

The wider debate around such payments has produced responses from school administrators who argue that contributions support activities such as sports, music and drama.

That disagreement illustrates why audit findings should be reported carefully.

An audit query is not automatically proof of corruption.

It is a red flag that calls for an explanation and, where necessary, corrective action.

That is precisely why the work of the Controller of Budget and Auditor-General matters.

Their offices perform different constitutional functions, but their reports ultimately lead back to the same place: the public purse.

The Controller of Budget focuses on budget implementation and the withdrawal and use of public funds within the approved framework.

The Auditor-General examines public accounts and financial management, providing Parliament and the public with independent information about how resources have been handled.

One looks closely at how the budget is being implemented.

The other examines what the financial records and audits reveal.

Together, their findings tell a more complete story.

Kenya is dealing with rising public debt.

Government departments are spending billions on travel and hospitality.

Large sums are being accessed through Article 223.

Some loans remain undrawn despite the financial obligations attached to them.

And billions of shillings have been tied up in stalled government projects.

The numbers are different, but the underlying question is the same.

Is Kenya getting enough public value from every shilling it spends?

That question should matter far beyond Parliament and government offices.

It matters to the taxpayer paying for public services.

It matters to the young Kenyan looking for opportunities.

It matters to the trader waiting for a completed market.

It matters to the patient waiting for a functioning health facility.

And it matters to future generations who will inherit the debt accumulated today.

There is also a reason to resist the temptation to reduce the entire debate to accusations.

Responsible accountability is not about declaring every questionable expenditure fraudulent.

It is about following the money, asking the difficult questions and giving institutions an opportunity to explain themselves.

Where an expenditure is legitimate, the records should show it.

Where a project is delayed for a genuine reason, the public deserves to know why.

Where money remains unused, there should be an explanation.

And where government uses exceptional budget mechanisms, citizens should be able to understand why the circumstances required them.

That is ultimately what the Controller of Budget and Auditor-General reports put before the country.

Not just figures.

A trail.

And that trail leads back to the most basic promise of public finance: money collected from the public should be managed in a way that can withstand public scrutiny.

Kenya has no shortage of budgets, development plans and ambitious projects.

The harder task is making sure that the money follows the plan, the projects are completed, the borrowing produces results and the records remain clear enough for anyone to ask where the money went.

As Parliament continues examining government expenditure and the audit findings move through the accountability process, one thing is certain: the figures will continue to attract attention.

The real story, however, will be found in what happens after the questions are asked.

CIVICLENS GAZETTE