A new assessment has placed Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway at the centre of concerns over rising debt and weak accountability systems, warning that major governance gaps and limited scrutiny have exposed the project to some of the highest corruption risks in the country’s infrastructure sector.
The findings by Transparency International (TI) Kenya show that the railway, one of the country’s biggest development projects, could have avoided part of its current financial strain if stronger checks and planning had been applied before it was rolled out.
The report, Corruption Risk Assessment of Infrastructure Projects in Kenya, indicates that the SGR recorded the highest corruption risk among three major projects reviewed between September 2025 and March 2026.
Using the Infrastructure Corruption Risk Assessment Tool (ICRAT), it assigned the railway a score of 4.49 out of five, classifying it as very high risk.
“By November 2024, the original Sh539 billion loan used to finance the first two phases had ballooned to Sh737.5 billion due to accumulated interest from delayed repayment. The cost is too much for a struggling country,” the report notes.
The assessment reviewed both national governance structures and the institutional setup of the Kenya Railways Corporation, which implemented the project. It points to weaknesses that include limited transparency in procurement, secrecy in contracting, weak complaint systems, low public participation and poor disclosure of financial details.
The SGR, launched under former President Uhuru Kenyatta as part of the Vision 2030 development plan, was meant to transform transport between Mombasa, Nairobi and Naivasha, with planned extensions to Kisumu and Malaba. However, the report argues that governance failures weakened the expected economic impact.
Phase One of the railway cost about Sh490.9 billion, with 90 per cent financed through Chinese loans. The second phase from Nairobi to Naivasha cost Sh193.8 billion.
The organisation says stronger due diligence at the planning stage could have reduced the financial pressure Kenya now faces. It further describes the project approval process as largely driven by investors, with limited public input and weak oversight.
Transparency International Kenya Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL) Coordinator Caroline Maina said the structure reduced accountability and limited scrutiny of key decisions.
The report also flags reliance on external funding, weak parliamentary oversight and limited access to information as early warning signs that were not adequately addressed.
It revisits earlier concerns over procurement procedures, noting that courts have previously questioned aspects of how contracts were awarded for the railway.
One of the major concerns raised is the lack of transparency in project financing and spending. The report says key documents, including loan agreements and cost breakdowns, were not easily accessible to the public or oversight bodies.
“We are not against development, but there must be fiscal discipline and accountability. Are the processes transparent?
Declarations must be made public on individuals getting these contracts. This is borrowed money, and Kenyans bear the cost of repayment,” said Transparency International Kenya Executive Director Sheila Masinde.
The report further highlights clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration in Beijing, China, along with confidentiality provisions that restricted the sharing of contract information.
It warns that such arrangements reduced transparency and made accountability harder to enforce.
Beyond the railway, the study points to wider challenges in Kenya’s infrastructure sector, estimating that more than Sh600 billion is lost annually through stalled or poorly executed public projects.
Kenya’s governance environment received an overall corruption risk score of 4.125 out of five, placing it in the high-risk category.
The report attributes this to weak whistleblower protection, persistent corruption concerns, procurement gaps and influence from powerful networks in decision-making.
It also highlights poor implementation of laws such as the Access to Information Act and the Public Finance Management Act, noting inconsistent compliance.
Transparency International concludes that weak public participation, poor documentation and opaque procurement systems continue to undermine public investments.
It recommends full disclosure of project documents, stronger oversight by Parliament and improved accountability systems.
With Kenya planning further expansion of the SGR from Naivasha to Malaba, the report warns that lessons from the current project must guide future infrastructure decisions.