President William Ruto’s government authorised Ksh209.37 billion in additional spending outside the original budget in the 2025/26 financial year, with Ksh144.40 billion going to public debt, according to the Controller of Budget.
The disclosure has put fresh focus on how Kenya is using Article 223 of the Constitution. This provision allows the government to respond when an approved budget is insufficient, or an unforeseen need arises.
The scale of the spending is striking. National Treasury approved Ksh281.46 billion in additional funding under Article 223 during the year, compared with Ksh72.24 billion in the previous financial year. The Controller of Budget subsequently authorised Ksh209.37 billion in withdrawals.
Of that amount, Ksh187.90 billion was for recurrent expenditure and Ksh21.47 billion for development.
But the largest individual allocation was public debt, at Ksh144.40 billion.
The figures appear in the Controller of Budget’s National Government Budget Implementation Review Report for FY2025/26, released this month.
Debt took the largest share
The debt allocation raises a broader question about the boundary between emergency expenditure and obligations that government can reasonably anticipate.
Article 223 is intended to provide flexibility when money appropriated for a service is insufficient, when a need arises for a purpose for which Parliament has not appropriated funds, or when money is withdrawn from the Contingencies Fund.
The Controller of Budget, however, warned against allowing the mechanism to become a substitute for proper budget planning.
The report says some Article 223 requests “concerned routine, day-to-day office operations”, raising questions about whether such spending was genuinely unforeseen when the original budget was prepared.
The Controller recommended that Article 223 should be used strictly for expenditure that was “unforeseen at the time of budget formulation or of an emergency nature.”
That distinction is at the heart of the new figures.
The report does not say that the Ksh144.40 billion debt allocation was illegal. Rather, it highlights the growing use of an additional-spending mechanism and calls for stronger controls around its application.
Debt pressure keeps rising
The additional spending came as Kenya faced mounting pressure from its public debt obligations.
Public debt reached Ksh13.01 trillion by June 30, 2026, according to the Controller of Budget, with debt-service costs continuing to place pressure on government finances.
The government also pursued debt-management operations during the financial year, including the partial redemption and buyback of existing International Sovereign Bonds while issuing new longer-term bonds.
The Controller said such transactions can reduce refinancing risks by extending maturities, but warned that replacing existing borrowing with new debt carrying similar or higher interest rates can increase future debt-service costs.
It recommended that sovereign bond buybacks be considered during the normal budget process “to minimise reliance on Article 223 of the Constitution and enhance budget credibility.”
That recommendation gives the debt allocation its wider significance.
The issue is not simply how much Kenya owes. It is how predictable obligations are incorporated into the country’s annual spending plans.
Budget grew after approval
The use of Article 223 occurred alongside substantial changes to the national budget during the year.
Kenya’s original FY2025/26 national government budget was Ksh4.69 trillion. It was later revised to Ksh5.50 trillion through Supplementary Estimates I before being reduced to Ksh5.27 trillion in Supplementary Estimates II.
The additional Article 223 funding therefore formed part of a wider pattern in which government spending changed significantly after Parliament had approved the initial budget.
For the Controller of Budget, that has implications for budget credibility.
A budget is intended to give Parliament and the public a clear picture of how government intends to raise and spend money. Frequent recourse to additional mechanisms can make that picture harder to follow.
The concern becomes sharper when the spending involves obligations that are central to government finances, including debt.
The accountability question
The latest figures leave a straightforward question for Ruto’s government and Parliament: how much government expenditure can legitimately be treated as unforeseen when the obligation is already part of the state’s financial planning?
The Controller of Budget has not accused the government of violating the Constitution. Instead, its report points to the need for tighter discipline around Article 223 and for predictable expenditure to be captured in the normal budget process.
The numbers show why that matters. Treasury approved Ksh281.46 billion in additional Article 223 funding in FY2025/26, while the Controller authorised Ksh209.37 billion in withdrawals. A Ksh144.40 billion share of those withdrawals went to public debt.
That means the story behind Kenya’s emergency budget route is no longer simply about unexpected projects or crises.
It is increasingly about how the government manages obligations it already knows it has — and whether those costs are being transparently and predictably built into the budget approved by Parliament.
