By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter
Kenya, 25 June 2026 - The High Court has struck the International Monetary Fund (IMF) out of a high-profile petition challenging the legality of nearly KSh 7 trillion in Kenya's public debt, ruling that the global lender enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under international agreements adopted by Kenya.
The decision marks a significant development in a case filed by Senator from Busia Okiya Omtatah and other petitioners seeking to have billions of shillings in public debt declared unconstitutional and "odious," arguing that some loans were allegedly contracted outside the legal framework governing public borrowing.
The court's ruling effectively shields the IMF from participating in the proceedings, leaving the petitioners to pursue their claims against the Kenyan government and other state institutions named in the case.
The debt petition has attracted national attention because it challenges approximately KSh 6.95 trillion to KSh 7 trillion of Kenya's public debt accumulated over the past decade, with petitioners alleging that portions of the borrowing were undertaken without proper parliamentary approval and were not linked to identifiable public development projects.
The IMF had earlier asked the court to remove it from the proceedings, arguing that Kenya is bound by international agreements dating back to 1963 that grant the institution immunity from lawsuits in Kenyan courts.
According to court filings, the lender maintained that its Articles of Agreement and Kenya's adoption of the Bretton Woods framework protect it from judicial action within member states.
In its submissions, the IMF argued that it cannot be held liable for how sovereign governments utilize borrowed funds once loans have been approved and disbursed under agreed frameworks.
The petitioners, however, had opposed the application, arguing that constitutional questions raised in the case warranted the IMF's continued participation. Senator Omtatah previously contended that immunity should not extend to alleged unconstitutional conduct related to public borrowing.
More from Kenya
At the heart of the case is the controversial doctrine of "odious debt," a principle sometimes invoked internationally to argue that citizens should not be burdened with repaying debts incurred unlawfully or without benefiting the public. The petitioners claim that a substantial portion of Kenya's debt falls within that category and should therefore not be borne by taxpayers.
The suit names several current and former government officials, including President William Ruto, former President Uhuru Kenyatta, National Treasury officials, the Central Bank of Kenya, Parliament, and other state agencies involved in public finance management.
The Central Bank of Kenya has previously distanced itself from responsibility for the borrowing decisions, arguing that it merely acts as the government's fiscal agent and banker while implementing financing decisions made by the National Treasury.
The ruling comes at a time when Kenya remains under pressure to manage a rapidly growing public debt burden. Treasury data shows debt servicing continues to consume a significant share of government revenues, making debt sustainability one of the country's most pressing economic concerns.
While the IMF's removal narrows the scope of the proceedings, the substantive constitutional questions surrounding the legality of Kenya's borrowing practices remain before the court and could have far-reaching implications for future government borrowing and public finance management.
Legal analysts say the outcome of the broader case could influence how future administrations approach debt contracting, parliamentary oversight, and accountability in the management of public funds.