The weapon Saccos are sitting on but held back by people meant to lead them

Most Savings and Credit Cooperative Organisations (Saccos) in Kenya are sitting on the exact weapon that could kill the banks, and they’re using it to lose slowly. Think about what a Sacco holds.

A huge base of loyal members who save month after month out of belonging, not the best rate. That is the cheapest money in the country. Banks spend fortunes trying to buy the trust a Sacco is simply given at birth.

Most Saccos waste that gift. That advantage is already leaking, and three forces are closing in at once. Banks went digital and never looked back. A member gets a loan on their phone in 90 seconds, while their Saccos still ask for a form, two guarantors and a committee sitting. Speed became the product.

Saccos are still selling patience. Mobile lenders took the small, fast credit Saccos used to own without a fight: the loan for school fees, for stock, for an emergency. Now it lives inside an app, and the young Kenyan who should have become a lifelong member never joins.

Governance failures cracked the last wall. Trust was the one thing banks couldn’t copy, and every scandal where savings existed only on paper spends it down.

But the deeper damage isn’t the scandal. It’s quieter, and it explains why Saccos see the data problem and still don’t fix it.

Most sacco boards are elected, not appointed for competence. A member becomes a director because they are popular in their branch or owed a favour, not because they understand what a credit-scoring model does.

 That isn’t a character flaw. It’s what the structure selects for, and it treats technology as a cost to trim rather than the investment that turns loyal deposits into a lending edge no bank can match. Term limits make it worse.

A board with two or three years left has no appetite for a system whose payoff lands after the next election. It is safer, politically, to keep the surplus high than to fund infrastructure a rival will get credit for finishing.

So, the Sacco stays a savings box with a loan window attached, while data that could make it a serious lender sits in a ledger nobody has the mandate to mine. This is where new blood stops being a slogan and becomes an operational necessity. A Sacco does not need younger directors for the optics of youth.

 It needs people who read a data architecture the way the current generation reads a loan book, who see that a member’s salary date and repayment history over five years is a credit model waiting to be built, not a filing requirement. That skill set rarely sits inside a board chosen for community standing. It has to be brought in deliberately, through independent directors with a technology background, and a culture that stops treating the same names on every ballot as continuity.

None of this requires abandoning what Saccos do well. The trust and the cheap deposits stay exactly as valuable as ever. What has to change is who decides what to do with them.

A governance structure built to protect savings safely for 50 years was never designed to extract intelligence from those savings in real time, and goodwill alone will not make it start.

The tragedy isn’t that Saccos might eventually lose to the banks. It’s that they were built to win and are held back by the very people meant to lead them. They hold the deposits, the trust and the data all at once.

Banks spend billions trying to manufacture what Saccos already have sitting idle.

The writer is a Certified Public Accountant and founder of Marathon Debt Recovery Ltd