Dr Chitunga: Why Kenya’s Infrastructure Fund should mirror Singapore’s investment model

A proposal to structure Kenya’s National Infrastructure Fund (NIF) as a corporate entity has sparked debate, with critics questioning why a state-backed vehicle meant to finance public infrastructure would be privately incorporated.

But a new governance paper argues that the model mirrors global best practice and could shield the fund from political interference while improving long-term returns.

In the paper, Dr Benard William Chitunga, Chancellor of the Co-operative University of Kenya, defends the corporate structure, saying many of the world’s most successful sovereign and infrastructure funds operate independently from direct government bureaucracy.

He points to funds such as Temasek Holdings and GIC Private Limited in Singapore, which are wholly government-owned but structured as private companies. 

Similar models are used by Mubadala Investment Company in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

“These funds are designed to operate with professional management and long-term commercial discipline, insulated from short-term political cycles,” the paper argues.

According to Chitunga, setting up the fund as a corporate entity would give it greater flexibility to operate with commercial discipline.

It would be able to recruit top-tier investment professionals competitively, make faster decisions guided by market conditions rather than lengthy administrative processes, and form partnerships with foreign institutional investors. 

The structure would also allow it to pursue investments beyond Kenya’s borders where strategic opportunities arise, while minimising bureaucratic bottlenecks that often slow down traditional government agencies.

The paper suggests that infrastructure funds globally are often structured this way to balance development impact with financial returns.

For instance, Temasek has historically reported long-term annualised returns in the mid-single digits over decades, while Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has spearheaded large-scale infrastructure and energy diversification projects under its Vision 2030 strategy.

India’s National Investment and Infrastructure Fund also operates as a corporate-style entity designed to crowd in private capital into public infrastructure projects.

Despite these examples, questions remain locally about whether a corporate structure could weaken oversight or limit parliamentary scrutiny.

Chitunga acknowledges that governance, not structure alone, will determine success. He calls for merit-based board appointments, strict anti-corruption safeguards, and transparent reporting mechanisms to ensure the fund remains accountable to Kenyans.

The debate comes as Kenya faces mounting infrastructure financing needs in energy, transport, housing and digital connectivity, even as fiscal pressures limit traditional public spending.

With sovereign and infrastructure funds globally managing assets estimated in the trillions of dollars, proponents argue that Kenya must adopt competitive governance models if it hopes to attract long-term institutional capital.

Whether the corporate model will win public trust, however, may depend less on international comparisons and more on how transparently the fund is established and managed at home.