Fresh scrutiny has been directed at Kenya’s Affordable Housing Levy after lawyer Willis Otieno raised a series of pointed questions over its legality, structure, and accountability, amplifying concerns among salaried workers contributing to the scheme.
In a detailed statement, Otieno questioned why Kenyan workers are compelled to finance housing projects on public land, only to later purchase the same houses through intermediaries.
He argued that the arrangement raises fundamental concerns about fairness and public value.
“Can we get an explanation as to why salaried Kenyans are compelled to contribute to the Housing Levy to construct houses on public land… only to be required to purchase these same houses from intermediaries who profit from public contributions despite adding no value?” he posed.
The Affordable Housing Levy, introduced under President William Ruto’s administration, requires mandatory contributions from both employees and employers to fund the government’s housing agenda.
The policy has been defended by the State as a key pillar in addressing Kenya’s housing deficit and stimulating economic growth.
However, Otieno’s remarks spotlight gaps in transparency and long-term planning.
He questioned the absence of a clear sunset clause, asking when the government intends to stop collecting the levy.
“At what point will the government declare that it has collected enough?” he asked.
He also raised concerns over financial accountability, calling for publicly available, independently audited reports detailing how much money has been collected and spent under the programme.
According to him, such disclosures are critical in building public trust.
The lawyer further challenged the structure of ownership within the programme, arguing that contributors should receive proportional benefits.
“If workers are financing the construction, why are they not granted an equitable ownership interest or priority rights?” he asked.
His statement also questioned the justification of profits made by intermediaries, particularly where projects are built on public land and funded through compulsory contributions.
Otieno argued that this raises constitutional concerns around equity and prudent use of public resources.