As debate continues over the governance structure of the proposed Kenya National Infrastructure Fund (NIF), fresh perspectives from policy and investment experts are casting the corporate model in a positive light, arguing it aligns with internationally tested frameworks.
The decision to structure the fund as a corporate entity has sparked questions in some quarters, with concerns ranging from transparency to public oversight.
However, supporters say the model is specifically designed to protect strategic national investments from political volatility while ensuring professional management.
Dr. Benard William Chitunga, an international civil servant and Chancellor of the Co-operative University of Kenya, says the global trend favors corporate-style sovereign and infrastructure funds.
“The corporate structure is not about privatizing national assets. It is about strengthening governance, improving efficiency, and enabling long-term, commercially sound investment decisions,” Dr. Chitunga said.
He noted that direct government control often exposes investment vehicles to bureaucratic delays and short-term political pressures, which can undermine long-term infrastructure planning.
“Infrastructure investments require patient capital. A corporate model allows the fund to operate with agility, attract top-tier professionals, and partner with international investors while remaining fully accountable to the government,” he added.
Globally, several major sovereign funds operate under similar structures.
Singapore’s Temasek Holdings and GIC Private Limited are often cited as benchmarks for operational independence combined with strong state oversight.
In the Gulf region, Mubadala Investment Company and the Public Investment Fund have leveraged corporate governance frameworks to mobilize billions of dollars into infrastructure, renewable energy, logistics, and technology projects.
India’s National Investment and Infrastructure Fund has similarly attracted global institutional investors by operating as a professionally managed investment platform with government participation.
Dr. Chitunga argues that Kenya can draw lessons from these models while tailoring the fund to local realities.
“The legal structure alone does not guarantee success. What matters most is integrity, transparency, and adherence to the fund’s mandate,” he said.
“Merit-based appointments, strong audit mechanisms, and clear reporting frameworks will determine whether the fund delivers value to Kenyans.”
He added that a well-governed National Infrastructure Fund could unlock long-term financing for energy, transport, digital connectivity, and industrial development, sectors critical to Kenya’s economic transformation agenda.
Proponents maintain that with appropriate safeguards and parliamentary oversight, the corporate model can combine commercial discipline with public accountability.
As the governance debate unfolds, attention is likely to shift from structure to implementation — and whether Kenya can build an institution that balances independence with transparency, while driving sustainable infrastructure growth for decades to come.
