Sunday Standard, 8 November 2026. Page 13
A Kenyan food processor with an export order needs to know what it will cost to get a container to Mombasa and whether it will reach the port before the ship sails. A dependable railway can make that order profitable and give the processor confidence to take on another. Long before the first container is loaded, choices about contracts and land acquisition help determine what Kenya will ultimately pay.
In its 34th Kenya Economic Update, the World Bank puts the average construction cost of Kenya’s diesel-powered Standard Gauge Railway from Mombasa to Nairobi at US$7.6 million per kilometre. Tanzania’s electrified line from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma cost US$5.7 million per kilometre. Kenya’s line cost about a third more per kilometre. Terrain, timing and design also shaped construction costs. At Tanzania’s rate, the Bank estimates that Kenya could have saved up to US$900 million, about KSh117 billion, in initial construction costs.
The Bank attributes at least 30 per cent of that estimated gap to governance failures. It cites direct contracting in place of competitive tendering, land speculation and fraud involving land titles, valuations and compensation. These practices help determine who gets the work, whose claim to land is recognised and how much the public pays. Kenya can change how those decisions are made.
When government borrows to cover avoidable construction costs, taxpayers carry those costs for years. Debt service leaves less room in future budgets for investments that help the railway deliver its promised benefits, such as roads linking farms and factories to freight terminals. Competition also matters to firms that might supply or build major public infrastructure. A capable company has more reason to invest in equipment and train its workers when it can win public work on the strength of its bid.
Article 227 of the Constitution requires public procurement to be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. Open tendering gives the government a way to compare what qualified firms would charge for the same work. Where the procuring authority makes a direct award, it should explain the grounds for doing so and show how it checked the price against comparable work. On land acquisition, it should make the basis for valuations and compensation available for scrutiny. People entitled to compensation need a fair process as much as taxpayers need assurance that the payments are justified.
For the next major railway contract, citizens should be able to see the cost estimate, the expected freight benefits and how the contractor will be chosen before any award. Afterwards, the procuring authority should publish the signed contract, the award decision and the names of the people who ultimately own the winning company. If the price or scope changes, the record should show what changed, how much it cost and who approved it.
That record should stay public through construction and into operation. It should show what has been paid, what has been delivered and how the authority has acted on the Auditor-General’s findings. Once trains are running, the authority should report what it actually costs to move a container and how reliably it reaches its destination. Citizens should be able to put those figures beside the promises that justified the contract.
The writer is a consultant in policy and governance. joshua@joshuawathanga.com
No responses yet