Did President Ruto Lie About Not Borrowing More Money Once Key Strategic Assets Are Sold To Raise The Needed Funds?

William Ruto has mastered a particular political art form: saying two things that cannot both be true, then daring the public to reconcile them. When he declared that selling Kenya’s key strategic assets would raise enough money to stop borrowing, he was not making a technical error or an optimistic projection. He was constructing a narrative designed to sound fiscally responsible while concealing a far more inconvenient reality.

At face value, the promise sounded logical. Sell underperforming or “idle” state assets, unlock capital, fund development, and reduce dependence on debt. In a country exhausted by taxes and IMF lectures, this message landed exactly where it was meant to land: on desperation. It gave the impression of a government finally willing to live within its means.

Yet almost immediately, the numbers betrayed the speech. Even as asset sales were being justified as a path away from debt, it emerged that the same government plans to borrow roughly Sh1 trillion in the FY 2026/27 budget cycle. That single fact collapses the entire argument. You cannot sell assets to stop borrowing and then borrow the same magnitude of money without admitting that the sale was never about debt reduction.

This contradiction is not accidental. It is structural. The asset sale narrative is not a fiscal strategy; it is a smoke screen. It is designed to normalize the disposal of national assets while quietly maintaining the same borrowing culture that has defined this administration from day one.

If asset sales were genuinely meant to plug budget holes and reduce debt, we would expect a clear, ring-fenced framework. Proceeds would be transparently allocated to debt retirement, with borrowing correspondingly reduced. Instead, what we see is parallel behavior: assets on one hand, debt on the other, both expanding in opposite directions.

Read Also: Rutos Scorecard: Why Kenyans Must End The Ruto Era & Restore The Soul Of The Republic Of Kenya

This raises a far more troubling question: if borrowing continues at scale, then what exactly are asset sales funding? The honest answer is that they are not funding development in any meaningful sense. They are creating fiscal space for political survival, patronage, and the recycling of elite power.

Strategic assets are not ordinary properties. They are monopolies, natural advantages, and long-term revenue streams built over generations. Once sold, they do not regenerate. Selling them while continuing to borrow is equivalent to pawning family land to pay rent while taking a loan to buy groceries.

The real danger lies not only in the sale itself, but in who is positioned to buy. In Kenya’s political economy, large-scale asset sales rarely attract competitive, independent capital. They attract politically connected buyers who understand that the price paid is less important than proximity to power.

History shows us how this game is played. Assets are undervalued, conditions are tailored, financing is quietly arranged through state-linked banks, and repayment becomes optional. The public is told a sale occurred; in reality, ownership merely shifts from public hands to private political networks.

In such arrangements, the people lose twice. First, they lose the asset itself. Second, they lose the future revenue that asset would have generated. Meanwhile, the state remains indebted, meaning citizens continue paying through taxes and austerity.

This is why the borrowing figure matters so much. A Sh1 trillion borrowing plan is not a rounding error. It is a confession. It tells us that asset sales are not intended to replace debt, but to coexist with it, expanding the pool of extractable value available to the ruling class.

The language of “strategic partnerships” and “value unlocking” is deliberately vague. It allows officials to avoid stating the obvious: that Kenya is liquidating tomorrow to finance today, without even the discipline of reducing liabilities.

What makes this especially deceptive is how the messaging targets ordinary Kenyans. The government frames asset sales as painful but necessary sacrifices, implying shared responsibility. In reality, the sacrifice is asymmetrical. The public gives up ownership; the elite gain control.

Borrowing alongside asset sales also undermines the claim that debt is the problem being solved. If debt were truly the enemy, every major fiscal decision would aim to shrink it. Instead, debt remains the backbone of budgeting, while asset sales become an add-on.

This dual approach reveals the real priority: cash flow, not sustainability. The administration needs liquidity to keep the system running, appease creditors, and maintain political stability. Long-term national interest is secondary.

There is also a deliberate confusion between gross revenue and net benefit. Selling an asset creates a one-off inflow, which looks impressive on paper. But borrowing creates a long-term outflow through interest and principal. Combining the two worsens the fiscal position, even if it temporarily improves optics.

Supporters may argue that asset sales fund specific projects while borrowing funds others. This argument collapses under scrutiny because money is fungible. Once assets are sold, the budget becomes more flexible, not more disciplined. Borrowing is not reduced; it is merely justified.

The deeper lie is moral rather than numerical. The public was told that asset sales would be a path out of debt bondage. What they are being given instead is a deeper form of dependency, where the state owns less, owes more, and controls nothing.

This pattern mirrors previous eras of privatization in Kenya, where public enterprises were stripped under the banner of reform, only to re-emerge as private monopolies benefiting a few. The difference now is scale. What is being proposed goes to the core of national sovereignty.

Strategic assets are not just economic tools; they are policy instruments. They allow governments to stabilize markets, provide services, and influence development. Selling them reduces the state to a tax collector and borrower, with no productive base.

Continuing to borrow after selling assets also locks future governments into an impossible corner. They inherit debt without assets, obligations without income, and political anger without solutions. This is governance by depletion.

The insistence that this is prudent economics insults the intelligence of citizens. Any household that sells income-generating property and still increases borrowing would be considered reckless. When the state does it, it is marketed as reform.

What we are witnessing is not incompetence; it is calculation. The administration understands that once assets are gone, reversing the decision becomes nearly impossible. Courts, contracts, and international arbitration protect buyers far more than citizens.

Meanwhile, borrowing provides immediate relief and postpones accountability. The pain is deferred, the bill passed forward, and the political class moves on enriched and insulated.

This is why the contradiction matters politically. It exposes a pattern of saying what is necessary to gain consent, while doing what benefits those in power. The lie is not in a single statement, but in the gap between promise and practice.

If asset sales were halted tomorrow, borrowing would continue. That alone tells you everything. Debt is not being replaced; it is being normalized. Assets are simply the next layer of extraction.

For Kenyans, the question is no longer whether the numbers add up. They clearly do not. The real question is how long citizens will accept explanations that collapse under the weight of their own arithmetic.

When leaders sell the country and still mortgage its future, the issue is not economics. It is honesty, accountability, and whose interests the state truly serves. On that test, the verdict is already clear.

Read Also: The Slow Death Of Nairobi Is At The Behest Of The Political Class Led By President Ruto