Why Corporate Structure is the Best Route for Kenya National Infrastructure Fund

A fresh voice has joined the debate on how Kenya should organise its planned National Infrastructure Fund. In a column published on Tuesday, Dr Benard Chitunga argues the NIF must operate as a corporate body rather than a direct arm of government.

The international civil servant and Chancellor of the Co-operative University of Kenya says governments everywhere have chosen this route for sovereign funds that focus on infrastructure. The main prize is freedom to work without layers of bureaucracy or sudden shifts in political direction.

Corporate status lets managers recruit skilled professionals who understand markets. It also opens the door to strategies that balance national needs with real financial discipline. Direct government control, Chitunga notes, often brings short-term pressures that can stall big projects.

The model further allows the fund to spread money across different assets, even outside Kenya, while still answering to the state as owner. For infrastructure, this means steady capital for energy, transport and technology schemes that take years to pay off.

Chitunga points to three well-known funds that follow the corporate path. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings runs as a private limited company fully owned by the government. Its portfolio runs into hundreds of billions of dollars and includes major infrastructure holdings. Over decades the fund has posted annual returns of six to seven per cent.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund operates in a similar corporate style. It channels money into domestic and overseas infrastructure as part of the kingdom’s Vision 2030 programme. Recent efforts have targeted renewable energy, logistics and green hydrogen plants. The structure has drawn billions in private co-investment and helped reduce reliance on oil.

In India the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund was created as a private company with the government holding a minority stake. It teams up with partners to build roads, power facilities and digital networks. Independent governance has pulled in foreign capital and linked public needs with institutional money.

Chitunga believes the same approach can succeed in Kenya. A corporate NIF would commit to projects that deliver steady, inflation-resistant returns while pushing national development. Global sovereign funds now manage more than eleven trillion dollars in assets and often outperform traditional investments.

Still, success hinges on three non-negotiable conditions. The board and management must be chosen on merit alone. Corruption must face zero tolerance. And every decision must stay faithful to the fund’s original purpose.

Without these safeguards even the best structure will fail. With them, Chitunga says, Kenya can turn the NIF into a reliable engine for the kind of patient capital that infrastructure demands.

The column arrives as officials finalise details of the fund. Discussions about its legal form have already sparked questions on transparency and accountability. Chitunga’s contribution frames the corporate route not as secrecy but as proven practice.

Many countries have used the model to fund long-gestation projects that ministries struggle to handle. Roads, ports, power stations and technology hubs all benefit when money flows without annual budget battles.

For Kenya the stakes sit high. The economy needs modern infrastructure to keep growing. A well-run corporate fund could channel resources efficiently and still serve public goals.

Chitunga ends on a clear note. The corporate form itself is not the risk. Poor governance is. Get the people and the rules right, he writes, and the National Infrastructure Fund can deliver both returns and real progress.

The opinion piece appears in Business Daily Africa.