NAIROBI, Kenya – Lawyer Willis Evans Otieno has raised concerns over what he describes as a potential “looting risk” after the Controller of Budget said her office does not have direct oversight of several government funds and levies operating outside the Consolidated Fund.
Otieno questioned how Kenyans can be assured that public money is properly accounted for when the constitutional office responsible for controlling withdrawals from public funds does not directly oversee some of the funds established outside the Consolidated Fund.
“If this is not a looting risk, then what is it?” Otieno said in a social media post reacting to the remarks.
Otieno questions oversight of public funds
Otieno argued that the issue goes beyond a technical question of public-finance administration, saying it raises broader questions about accountability for money collected from taxpayers.
He questioned who is responsible for monitoring funds that operate outside the direct oversight of the Controller of Budget and whether Kenyans can obtain a clear account of how the money is collected and spent.
“Who is watching the money?” he asked.
Otieno said every shilling collected from Kenyans should have a legal and audit trail as well as an identifiable institution responsible for its management.
He argued that public funds should not escape scrutiny simply because they have been placed in separate statutory funds.
Controller says office lacks direct visibility
Otieno’s comments followed remarks by Controller of Budget Margaret Nyakang’o, who said her office does not have direct oversight of government funds and levies that are not held under the Consolidated Fund.
Nyakang’o identified funds including the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), National Infrastructure Fund, Sovereign Wealth Fund and Primary Healthcare Fund as examples of funds over which her office does not have direct visibility.
The Controller said her constitutional mandate covers withdrawals from specified public funds and that the legal framework does not currently give her office the same approval role over some of these other funds.
The Office of the Controller of Budget says its budget-control function includes authorising withdrawals from public funds where the Controller is satisfied that the withdrawals are authorised by law.
Parliament has debated oversight gap
The question of oversight over funds outside the Consolidated Fund has previously been raised in Parliament.
In 2025, Nyakang’o told MPs that funds including SHIF, the Housing Fund, Railway Development Fund and Petroleum Levy were operating outside the Consolidated Fund and therefore were not part of the withdrawals approved by her office.
She said Parliament could review the relevant legislation if the oversight mandate was to be extended to such funds.
The issue has also featured in parliamentary debate over the National Infrastructure Fund.
During debate on the legislation, MPs discussed whether withdrawals from accounts associated with the fund should require approval from the Controller of Budget. An amendment was proposed to expressly require such approval for specified withdrawals.
National Infrastructure Fund established
The National Infrastructure Fund was established under legislation assented to by President William Ruto in March 2026.
Parliament said the fund was designed to mobilise capital from sources including pension funds, collective investment schemes, sovereign wealth funds and climate-finance institutions for major infrastructure projects.
The law provides for a governance structure involving a Governing Council and Board of Directors to oversee policy and investment decisions.
The establishment of the fund has nevertheless prompted debate about the balance between flexibility in infrastructure financing and constitutional and parliamentary oversight of public resources.
Otieno warns against accountability gaps
Otieno argued that the existence of separate funds should not create what he considers gaps in accountability.
He said funds collected from Kenyans should remain traceable through legal, financial and audit mechanisms and questioned whether existing arrangements provide sufficient public scrutiny.
“If nobody with effective constitutional oversight can give Kenyans a clear account of where every shilling goes, then what exactly are these ‘funds’ shielding from public scrutiny?” he asked.
His comments were framed as a warning about the potential consequences of inadequate oversight rather than evidence that money held in the funds has been stolen or misappropriated.
Auditor-General has separate audit mandate
During parliamentary debate on the National Infrastructure Fund, MPs pointed to Article 229 of the Constitution, which gives the Auditor-General authority to audit the accounts of public funds.
This creates a distinction between the Controller of Budget’s withdrawal-approval function and the Auditor-General’s audit mandate.
The debate therefore centres on whether existing oversight mechanisms provide sufficient control, transparency and accountability over funds operating outside the Consolidated Fund.
