Ruto’s road programme needs a public progress report

A road programme should be defended by the journeys it makes possible. The farmer getting produce to market before it spoils, the ambulance reaching a patient and the trader spending less on transport are better witnesses for a government than another launch ceremony. President William Ruto’s administration has a sound reason to prioritise unfinished roads. It also has a responsibility to make the results easy to check.

The strongest response to criticism of its infrastructure programme would be a public progress report, organised road by road, showing what has been paid, what has been built and when the remaining work will finish. That would give supporters something substantial to defend and citizens something more useful than a contest between speeches.

KBC reported on 10 October that Deputy President Kithure Kindiki said the government had released Sh177 billion to revive stalled road projects. His remarks, made in Kinyona, included a promise to complete the Kigumo section of the Mau Mau road programme. These are significant government claims. They deserve a clear account of delivery.

There is also an obvious question about the reporting period. A DPCS report carried by Citizen Digital on 18 February quoted Kindiki saying Sh177 billion in outstanding contractors’ bills had been cleared. The recurrence of the same figure does not establish double counting or wrongdoing. It does make a reconciliation necessary: is October describing the earlier settlement, further disbursements, or progress on projects financed through that settlement?

A government asking to be judged on delivery should make that judgment possible.

Make the money intelligible

Government communication often compresses several different events into the word “funded”. A budget allocation, an approved financing arrangement, a transfer to an implementing agency and a payment received by a contractor are different stages. Each matters, but they do not establish the same thing. Citizens should not need an accountant beside them to understand which stage a minister is announcing.

A useful report would therefore start with a short explanation of the headline amount. It would state the period covered, the obligations included and the amount actually paid by a specified date. Where money remains committed but undisbursed, the report should say so plainly. Where a payment settles old work, it should not be presented as proof that new construction has already taken place.

This is a practical improvement in communication, not an invitation to declare every discrepancy corrupt. An old bill can be legitimate. Paying it can restore a contractor’s capacity to resume work and prevent further costs. A government can inherit a difficult position and make meaningful progress in repairing it. But those achievements become harder to explain when the financial vocabulary keeps shifting.

Supporters of the administration should welcome that distinction. Defending a verified settlement is easier than defending a number whose meaning must be guessed. The presidency should want the public argument to move from whether a figure sounds impressive to whether the programme is moving in the right direction.

Put a name and a deadline beside every road

The next layer should be a project register that people can search by county, constituency and road name. Each entry should identify the responsible road agency, contractor, original scope, contract value and any approved variation. It should include the original completion date, the current completion date and a short explanation of changes. A resident should be able to recognise the road being discussed.

Financial progress and physical progress should appear beside each other. The report should show cumulative certified work, cumulative payments and the latest independently checked construction milestone. A percentage alone can mislead when the public does not know what it measures. Earthworks, drainage, bridges and surfacing contribute differently to a completed road. The explanation should reflect that rather than flatten everything into a colourful chart.

There should also be a visible date on every update. A dashboard displaying last year’s information can give a false impression of current supervision. If an agency cannot verify a new figure, it should mark the entry as awaiting verification. Publishing uncertainty honestly is more credible than filling a blank with an optimistic estimate that later has to be quietly revised.

The system need not begin with an expensive digital platform. A consistent downloadable table, a simple website and printed summaries at accessible public offices would be a useful start. The purpose is to make records usable. Buying technology before agreeing what must be disclosed risks creating another impressive launch with an uncertain public benefit.

Explain delays without hiding behind them

The strongest objection to this proposal is that construction is complicated. Rain can interrupt work. Land acquisition, utility relocation, disputes and unexpected ground conditions can change a timetable. Some contractors may need time to restore staff and equipment after prolonged inactivity. It would be unreasonable to treat every missed date as evidence of deliberate failure.

Precisely because those problems are real, the public report should describe them. “Delayed” is not a sufficient explanation. An agency should say which obstacle is holding up work, who must resolve it and when the next decision is expected. A compensation dispute requires a different response from a contractor who has received payment but failed to mobilise. Lumping them together prevents sensible accountability.

Nor should transparency encourage unsafe acceleration. A contractor must not feel compelled to lay a surface in unsuitable conditions merely to satisfy a political deadline. The report should distinguish a necessary engineering pause from avoidable administrative drift. Quality inspections and remedial work belong in the public account, even when they complicate a minister’s preferred story of uninterrupted progress.

The political incentive should be to solve a problem early, not conceal it until an inspection visit. Officials who disclose a genuine constraint and act on it should have more protection than officials who offer reassuring percentages while the problem grows. The presidency can establish that incentive through the questions it asks at its own progress meetings.

Completion is more than fresh tarmac

A road that looks finished in a photograph may still lack drainage, safe crossings, signs or a workable maintenance arrangement. These are not decorative additions. If the government wants infrastructure to support everyday economic activity, it must judge the route as something people use rather than something a camera records.

Public reporting should therefore continue beyond the opening ceremony. The agency should state what remains under the contractor’s responsibility, how defects can be reported and who will maintain the completed asset. Residents should not be left moving between a county office, a national agency and a contractor because no one will explain where responsibility sits.

This approach also protects the public investment. Finding and correcting a drainage problem promptly may prevent more extensive damage later. Publishing a maintenance responsibility does not guarantee that maintenance will happen, but it makes the omission visible. Without that information, the cycle can become familiar: construction, celebration, deterioration and another promise to rehabilitate the same route.

It would also help the government explain choices. Resources are finite. Some projects will have to proceed before others. A stated prioritisation method, including safety, economic use, existing commitments and the cost of leaving work unfinished, is easier to defend than the suspicion that attention depends entirely on political proximity. The criteria must be applied consistently, including in areas that oppose the president.

Let scrutiny strengthen delivery

Parliamentary committees, auditors, engineers, local journalists and residents each see different parts of this story. A public register should make their work easier, while leaving formal verification and enforcement to the relevant institutions. A resident’s dated photograph can flag a problem; it cannot replace an engineer’s assessment. Both can contribute without pretending to be the same kind of evidence.

The government should offer a clear correction channel. An agency that disputes a published observation should respond with records and an explanation. A journalist who finds that a project has advanced should update the account just as readily as one who finds a delay. Accountability loses value when either camp treats contrary evidence as an inconvenience to its chosen narrative.

For Ruto, the political gain would be substantial if the programme is delivering. A reliable record can survive the news cycle and give citizens evidence they can compare with their own experience. It can also reveal where intervention is urgently required before a small failure becomes a costly one. That is a better use of presidential authority than repeatedly restating aggregate commitments.

A public report would also help smaller businesses waiting further down the supply chain. Payment to a main contractor does not necessarily tell a supplier or worker when an outstanding amount will reach them. Agencies should clarify which obligations they can verify and which remain private contractual matters. The government should avoid promising control it does not possess, while still insisting that its own contractors meet their documented responsibilities. That would make the discussion of cleared bills more useful to the people whose working capital and wages are caught in the delay.

The first report should reconcile the Sh177 billion announcements, identify the projects covered and show the latest payment and construction position. The next reports should follow on a published quarterly timetable. An administration asking to be judged on delivery should make that judgment possible. Supporting its road programme means insisting that the public can see where the money has gone and when the road will be ready.