David Ndii argues that subsidised housing can make home ownership accessible to a wider section of society. President William Ruto says construction will create the jobs needed to pay for it. But questions about prices, household incomes and public accountability will determine whether the programme can deliver on both promises.
By The Ledger Africa Team
Kenya’s affordable housing programme rests on an appealing economic proposition: build homes at lower cost, create jobs through construction and expand access to home ownership. The difficulty is demonstrating that these three objectives reinforce one another rather than compete for limited public resources.
David Ndii, President William Ruto’s economic adviser, has defended the programme against criticism that it does not adequately serve poor households. His argument is that the initiative should not be judged solely by whether it targets the poorest citizens. It should instead be assessed by whether it makes decent housing affordable to a wider population.
In a post on X on 24 October, Ndii wrote: “AHP is not for the poor. Our goal is to make quality housing affordable by all.” He described the programme as inclusive middle-class housing, arguing that lower-income households should be able to enjoy living standards previously associated with wealthier families.
There is a coherent economic idea behind that argument. But there is also a question that political declarations cannot settle: how many households can actually afford the homes being offered, under the financing terms available to them?
The rationale behind affordability
Ndii has offered a numerical defence of the programme. According to a version of his argument reproduced on X, the original plan was to deliver a two-bedroom flat costing more than KSh40,000 a month on the private market for a monthly payment of KSh13,000 under the Affordable Housing Programme.
He argues that, using a housing-cost benchmark of 30 per cent of income, the programme would reduce the monthly income needed to afford the property from KSh120,000 to KSh40,000. He acknowledges that costs have changed but maintains that the programme remains on target.
The calculation makes the government’s case more concrete than a general claim about inclusion. If a household can obtain a suitable home for KSh13,000 a month instead of paying KSh40,000 for comparable accommodation, the difference could be substantial.
But the comparison needs to be tested.
Are the two figures based on comparable properties in the same location? Does the KSh13,000 payment include all financing costs? What deposit must the buyer raise? How long does the payment schedule run? Are service charges, maintenance and utilities included? And how many eligible households can obtain the advertised terms?
The 30 per cent benchmark is also an assumption, not proof that every household can afford the payment. A family with irregular earnings, school fees and substantial transport costs may have less disposable income than a household earning the same amount under different circumstances.
Ndii’s calculation therefore provides a testable proposition. The government should publish the assumptions behind it and show how the resulting payment compares with the budgets of actual applicants.
Housing can create jobs. Can those jobs pay for the houses?
President Ruto’s defence rests on a related economic argument. Construction generates demand for labour and materials, putting money into the economy and potentially enabling workers to afford better accommodation.
In September, responding to Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna’s criticism of the programme, Ruto said: “yes, Kenya’s problem is income, but housing is what gives us employment.” He argued that the initiative addressed employment, income and housing together.
That is a legitimate argument for public investment. Construction can create jobs directly and generate demand for suppliers, transport operators, manufacturers and other businesses.
But employment created during construction is not automatically sufficient to resolve a household’s housing problem.
The relevant questions are how many jobs are created, how long they last, what workers earn and whether those earnings are sufficient to meet housing costs after other expenses. The distinction between temporary construction work and sustained employment matters particularly for households expected to make payments over many years.
Nor does the number of people employed on building sites establish how many workers will ultimately qualify for the homes being constructed.
The programme’s economic case would be stronger if the government reported employment by project, the duration of jobs, the wages paid and the proportion of workers who subsequently obtain housing. These figures would help distinguish the immediate stimulus from the longer-term gains.
The slum-eradication promise needs a separate measure
The government’s ambitions extend beyond home ownership.
In March 2025, Ruto said the programme would transform informal settlements, promising Mathare residents that they would “soon own and live in decent homes”. The remarks, published by Citizen Digital, presented housing construction as a route towards ending the poor living conditions associated with slums.
The distinction between building houses and eradicating slums is important.
A new development can provide better accommodation for successful applicants without necessarily improving conditions for residents who cannot afford to move. A housing project can also be completed while the surrounding settlement continues to face insecure tenure, inadequate sanitation, unreliable water supplies or poor access to services.
Sifuna has challenged the government’s approach on precisely this point. During a political rally in September, he argued that inadequate income was the primary barrier preventing residents of informal settlements from accessing decent housing. He also questioned how much the programme had changed conditions in established settlements such as Mathare and Kibera.
His argument should not be accepted without scrutiny either. More housing supply can improve access and construction can create employment. But the existence of a new housing estate does not prove that an informal settlement has been transformed.
The government should report separately on new units completed, households relocated or allocated homes, units occupied, and improvements to basic services and tenure security. That would establish whether the programme is expanding housing supply, changing living conditions or achieving both.
The Senate is asking a different question
The dispute over affordability is only part of the programme’s accountability challenge.
A report published by The Standard on 22 October said senators were seeking a comprehensive examination of the programme’s financial and operational arrangements. The inquiry, initiated through Marsabit Senator Mohammed Chute, includes questions about county housing committees, investment plans, construction expenditure, contractors, outstanding bills and the occupancy of completed units.
These questions matter because public spending should be assessed against results, not announcements.
A project may have a sound economic rationale and still suffer from cost overruns, weak oversight or delays. Equally, the existence of unanswered questions does not establish wrongdoing. The purpose of scrutiny is to determine what happened, whether the expenditure was justified and what corrective action may be necessary.
The housing levy makes that examination particularly important. The programme relies on a compulsory contribution from employees and employers, placing its financing within a wider debate about the distribution of costs and benefits.
Citizens need to know how much has been collected, how the money has been allocated, what has been spent and what remains committed. At project level, the public should be able to compare original budgets with actual expenditure, approved variations and the cost of completed units.
The allocation process deserves similar attention. If public resources support housing intended for lower-income households, the criteria for selecting beneficiaries should be clear enough to establish whether those households are receiving the intended benefit.
These are questions of governance, not merely political opposition to the programme.
A sound idea is not the same as successful execution
The title of a KICTANet commentary supplied for this analysis, Kenya’s Affordable Housing: Great Idea, Poor Execution, captures a distinction worth examining. However, the article’s full text could not be retrieved during this research, so its specific findings cannot responsibly be attributed or quoted here.
The broader distinction is straightforward. A policy may address a genuine economic need while failing to reach the people it was designed to serve. Conversely, implementation problems do not necessarily invalidate the underlying idea.
For Kenya, the question is whether subsidised construction can produce homes at prices that match household incomes while creating employment and delivering value for the public money committed.
That requires evidence from both sides of the housing market. Developers and the government must explain construction costs, financing and delivery. Buyers and prospective beneficiaries must be able to demonstrate whether the resulting payments are affordable in practice.
Independent housing researchers can then test those claims against household income, rents, mortgage terms and the costs of living in different locations.
The measure that matters
Ndii is right to insist that the housing debate should consider the economics of expanding access to decent homes, rather than treating the programme solely as a transfer to the poorest households. Ruto is also right that construction can generate employment and income.
Neither argument, however, resolves the question of delivery.
The government’s case will be stronger if it publishes project-level evidence showing the full cost of each unit, the financing available to buyers, the number of completed and occupied homes, the income profile of beneficiaries and the employment generated.
The Senate’s scrutiny should help establish whether the programme’s financial and operational arrangements support those objectives. The government’s response should be judged by the evidence it produces, not by the political standing of its critics.
Kenya’s housing challenge is not solved by choosing between the poor and the middle class. It requires a system in which different income groups can access appropriate housing without taking on costs they cannot sustain.
The ultimate test is not how many houses the government announces, how many jobs it promises or how persuasively it defends the programme. It is how many people obtain decent homes they can afford, whether their living conditions improve and whether the public can account for the money used to deliver them.
