Can't read it? Listen now!
Reports indicate that the Kenyan government has allocated Sh2.1 billion to its multinational security mission in Haiti, prompting concerns about resource prioritization in the face of domestic challenges, despite previous assurances of external financial support.
The funds were disbursed on September 18 under Article 223 of the Constitution, which allows government spending without prior parliamentary approval. This expenditure is part of Sh17.6 billion recently deployed under the same provision, according to documents presented to the National Treasury.
Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi clarified that the expenditure would be reimbursed by the United Nations (UN). However, critics are questioning the decision to use taxpayer funds in light of pressing local needs such as education and healthcare.
“This money we are spending is on behalf of the UN. Once refunded, we will include it in the supplementary budget as both income and expenditure, per legal requirements,” Mbadi stated.
The UN Security Council approved the Haiti mission earlier this year, relying on voluntary contributions from member states. Despite an initial pledge of $600 million (Sh91.5 billion), only a portion of the funds has materialized, forcing Kenya to use domestic resources to support its 400 deployed officers. Another 600 Kenyan officers are expected to join the mission by the end of November.
President William Ruto has called for urgent financial action from the international community, warning that existing funds will be exhausted by March 2025.
“We are asking the international community to match their commitment and pledges with necessary action,” Ruto said during a meeting with former Haitian Prime Minister Garry Conille.
The deployment aims to combat escalating gang violence in Haiti, which has claimed over 3,600 lives, including more than 100 children, and displaced over 500,000 people this year, according to the UN.
The revelation of Kenyan funds being directed toward Haiti has sparked debate over the balance between fulfilling international peacekeeping commitments and addressing domestic challenges. Education, healthcare, and infrastructure remain underfunded in Kenya, and many are questioning whether the government’s priorities align with public needs.
Critics argue the decision contradicts earlier assurances that taxpayer money would not be used for the mission. Concerns have also emerged over the living conditions of Kenyan officers deployed in Haiti, with reports of logistical challenges.
Kenya’s leadership in Haiti reflects its growing ambition to position itself as a key player in global peacekeeping. While this enhances Kenya’s diplomatic influence, the reliance on domestic funding to bridge the gap in international contributions has exposed vulnerabilities in global peacekeeping frameworks.
The mission’s future largely depends on whether promised funding from the United States and other UN member states materializes. As of now, the Kenyan government is footing the bill, putting further pressure on limited resources.
Kenya’s involvement in Haiti underscores a broader conversation about the role of African nations in international peacekeeping and the cost of stepping up when global powers fall short on their promises.
