Government agencies are increasingly turning to a constitutional provision meant for urgent and unforeseen needs to finance expenses that Controller of Budget Margaret Nyakang’o says could have been planned for in the regular budget.
Nyakang’o has raised concern over the growing use of Article 223 of the Constitution, saying some entities approach her office for additional funds after the financial year has already started despite the expenditure being foreseeable when ministries and departments were preparing their budgets.
Speaking on Thursday, September 17, 2026, she explained that her office reviews every application for a withdrawal outside the estimates Parliament approved in June before deciding whether to allow the spending.
“It means that the spending entity can actually establish that the item cannot come out of the budget that has been approved, which is possible,” she said.
Nyakang’o said agencies do not automatically qualify for funding simply because they claim they need money outside their approved allocations.
Asked whether the expenditure presented under Article 223 was always unforeseen, she said some of it could have been anticipated during the budgeting process.
“Not always unforeseen. A lot of them actually are foreseeable.”
Agencies must justify extra funding
The Controller said her office requires government entities to explain why particular expenses were not included in their approved budgets before they can access additional funds.
Each application is examined to establish whether the expenditure was known when the budget was being prepared and whether there is a valid reason for it to be considered under Article 223.
“They must respond before I can do anything,” Nyakang’o said.
She said some agencies have managed to provide explanations that justified their requests, leading her office to approve the withdrawals.
“A lot of times they were able to explain themselves, and I finally then approved the withdrawal. But where they were not able to explain themselves, you will see blanks. I will tell them that this will not qualify under this.”
Nyakang’o said her office also keeps a record explaining why each withdrawal was approved.
“So for each approval of a withdrawal, there is a letter and an explanation justifying the expenditure.”
Her concerns come against a sharp rise in requests for additional funding outside the approved government estimates.
Treasury sought Sh281.46 billion through Article 223 in the year to June 2026, an amount equivalent to about six per cent of the gross national budget.
Of this amount, Nyakang’o approved Sh209.37 billion, compared with Sh66.54 billion authorised in the previous financial year.
Article 223 permits withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to meet urgent and unforeseen expenditure. Such spending is then subject to parliamentary regularisation.
However, the Controller’s latest budget implementation review found that some applications concerned normal government operations that had not been properly catered for during the budget process.
Among the requests was Sh3.9 billion from the State Department for Sports to meet Kenya’s contractual obligation related to hosting the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations.
The commitment was already known before Parliament approved the 2026/27 budget.
Data covering the four years to June 2026 shows that government entities requested Sh522.79 billion through Article 223.
Nyakang’o declined requests amounting to Sh158.6 billion during the same period.
She has called for the constitutional provision to be restricted to expenditure that could not reasonably have been predicted during budget preparation or money needed because of an emergency.
Nyakang’o has also supported changes to the legal rules governing Article 223 withdrawals, arguing that the mechanism should not become a regular way of financing expenses that could have been addressed through normal budget planning.
Her explanation highlights the role played by the Controller’s office in examining government requests made after Parliament has passed the national budget.
Agencies seeking money beyond their approved allocations must demonstrate why the expenditure could not be met from the existing budget or postponed until the next budget cycle.