Hashtag kind of debate drowns facts on critical national issues

One of the challenges in today’s public discourse, especially on critical public interest issues, is that it follows the hashtag model, few words that emphasize the most extreme portion of the debate and framing meant to drive a defined narrative.

Whether it is the divestiture from Safaricom, sale of parastatals or compensation of victims of police violence, the debate is predictable. Hardly does one find objective, fact-based arguments not pushing a narrative, usually a political one.

As I unpack one of the contentious and ongoing public debates; the construction of the Rironi Mau-Summit Road through a Public Private Partnership model, the assumption that it is politically purposed narrative is a cross one must bear.  

My hope is however, is that it enhances quality of discourse on the subject, from the perspective, not of a praise singer but a realist. When the government launched the project a week ago, many Kenyans were perturbed to hear that it would cost over Sh200 billion and would be based on a toll model that would last 30 years.

Even as they recognised that the road was essential, they wondered why unlike other roads, users were being required to pay toll.

Why not use our existing taxes, or RMLF with its annual billions, to build the road, thus avoid tolling. Was this not double taxation? These are legitimate questions, and I will try place the issues in perspective. Firstly, we must recognise that this road is at least 40 years behind schedule. The losses incurred by endless congestion especially during festive periods, safety concerns arising from design issues, our driver behaviour and climatic conditions are far more than the Sh200 billion we will invest.

Secondly, we cannot finance the project from tax revenues. Kenya does not have the revenue margins to undertake this size of project.

Of course, some of our tax revenue gets embezzled but even none was stolen, our taxes are currently only able to finance our recurrent expenditure and pay debt, with just a little left over for basic development. Thirdly, the RMLF is for maintaining our already built roads, not building new ones.

Fourthly on borrowing, unfortunately, we have exhausted our debt capacity. The option chosen by government, which is a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain-Transfer model allows the Chinese company and NSSF, who won the bid, to invest their capital upfront to build, operate and maintain the road for 30 years, after which the road will be a normal public road once the concession ends. This model is controversial for numerous reasons. Primarily, unlike public finance from taxes where everybody pays irrespective of their use, in pay as you go mechanisms, only users pay.

This can seem discriminatory but ultimately, it is one the few viable options available until we build a Sovereign Wealth Fund, which if we had been innovative over the decades, we would have used for such projects. The problem of developing infrastructure is not unique to Kenya. Most countries cannot finance construction of highways, roads, bridges, ports, and water infrastructure from traditional public resources and are innovating.

Pension funds, insurance funds, and similar private offerings provide some of the most common sources that give financiers guaranteed stable and long-term returns. The Rironi-Mau Summit model presents a viable alternative, presenting an opportunity to bring this critical development faster by deferring debt. In this arrangement, government does not deploy our taxes to build the road.

Of course, there could be other options outside of taxation and debt that others can propose, but from the 70 or so public hearings KENHA held on the subject, none appeared feasible. These arguments make two assumptions.

Firstly, that at design level, there is at least one toll-free lane, much like for Nairobi Expressway, so people have options to avoid the toll, with attendant inconveniences. Secondly, that there will be no malfeasance behind the project. Knowing Kenya, this assumption is criminally naïve. This legitimate concern we must however leave to the watchdogs; the Controller of Budget, Auditor General, Parliament, media and other non-state communities to mitigate. But to continue to retain that key passage into and across most of Kenya in its present state, is grossly irresponsible.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya