A new review by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) shows that Kenya’s public procurement system continues to lose billions of shillings due to weak controls, limited monitoring, and opaque practices.
The report highlights how complicated procedures and poor transparency create an environment where corruption thrives and honest suppliers are sidelined.
The 2024 assessment notes that the procurement framework is often too complicated for officials to apply correctly, creating gaps that dishonest actors can exploit. Instead of promoting fair competition, the system sometimes shields unethical practices while discouraging businesses that want to compete openly.
“The large number of procurement methods and approaches means that it is complicated to select the right one and apply it properly,” the report states. “As a result, practitioners become inclined to focus on formal details more than on economy, efficiency and transparency.”
The findings reveal that many procurement officers focus on procedural compliance rather than ensuring that public funds are spent wisely. Officials can choose methods that favor certain suppliers, and these decisions cannot be challenged, leaving little room for accountability.
Transparency remains a major issue. Many government entities do not make their procurement plans, tender notices, or contract awards available for public scrutiny, limiting opportunities for competition.
“Only about 73 per cent of major procuring entities publish tender notices as required,” the report says. This leaves nearly a third of major contracts invisible to the public, reducing fair competition and public oversight.
The report also found that changes to contracts are often not disclosed, leading to deals that end up costing more than initially planned. “The actual disclosure of information does not meet the requirements,” it adds.
Gaps in reporting make it difficult to track how the procurement system is performing or to detect irregularities. The PPRA notes that the current data is incomplete and cannot reliably support decision-making or policy development.
“The information system is therefore not yet quite accurate and comprehensive enough to fully meet the needs for monitoring how the public procurement system actually works, whether in the individual or the general case, nor can it serve as a reliable basis for policy making,” reads the report.
Past efforts to address losses have had limited success. In 2018, former President Uhuru Kenyatta ordered procurement and accounting heads to go on compulsory leave, but the move was later blocked by the courts.
More recently, President William Ruto introduced a unified electronic government procurement system to improve transparency and reduce inefficiency. Despite this, uptake remains low and some agencies have resisted implementing the system fully.
The review also criticizes the complaints process, which requires whistleblowers and suppliers to pay high, non-refundable fees to challenge tenders they believe are unfair.
“High fees discourage complaints,” the report warns, describing this as a serious obstacle to tackling corruption in procurement.
Overall, the PPRA concludes that weaknesses in oversight, poor record-keeping, and limited transparency continue to drain billions of shillings from public funds, leaving Kenyans with little recourse to recover the losses.
