Kenya’s debt to China has become the subject of a persistent and often misleading narrative: that the borrowing has little value and that the infrastructure financed through it represents little more than a burden for future generations.
That argument ignores an important part of the equation.
Debt, particularly development financing, cannot be assessed only by looking at the amount owed. It must also be assessed by what the borrowing has enabled a country to build and the long-term value those investments create.
The Standard Gauge Railway is perhaps the clearest example.
Critics frequently cite the SGR as evidence that Kenya borrowed heavily through vendor financing and was left with an unnecessary debt burden. But that argument looks at only one side of the equation: the loan. It ignores the asset.
Kenya did not borrow money that simply disappeared. The financing built a major national infrastructure that is now part of the country’s transport and logistics system.
Every day, the SGR carries thousands of passengers between Nairobi and Mombasa and moves tonnes of cargo along one of East Africa’s most important economic corridors. It supports the movement of goods to and from the Port of Mombasa and strengthens Kenya’s broader transport and logistics network beyond the borders.
The value of such infrastructure cannot reasonably be measured overnight.
A railway is not a short-term project whose significance should be determined only by what it earns within its first few years. Major infrastructure is built to serve economies over decades. Its benefits accumulate as passenger numbers grow, cargo volumes increase and businesses benefit from improved connectivity and convenience.
That is how serious nations think about infrastructure.
The question should not simply be: How much did Kenya borrow to build the SGR? or how much is Kenya earning from the SGR.
The more important question is: What would Kenya’s transport and logistics capacity look like today without it?
That is the value side of the equation too often ignored.
There is also a tendency among some critics to portray Chinese financing as though Kenya had no say in deciding what to build. That is simply not true.
Kenya made an independent decision to invest in modern transport infrastructure. The country identified the need to strengthen connectivity and sought financing to deliver a project of national and regional importance.
China provided financing for infrastructure that Kenya had decided to build.
The fact that a project is financed through debt does not mean the decision to undertake it was imposed on the borrower. Countries borrow to build roads, railways, ports and other strategic assets because development requires capital.
The critical issue is whether that capital creates lasting value.
In the case of the SGR, Kenya has a modern railway that is transporting people and goods and will continue serving the country for generations.
One common argument is that Kenya should simply have upgraded the old Meter Gauge Railway instead of constructing a new Standard Gauge Railway.
But why should Kenya remain tied to yesterday’s infrastructure choices in the 21st Century when the rest of the world is moving forward?
The MGR played an important role in Kenya’s development and continues to have its place. But the existence of an older railway was not a reason to abandon the ambition of building a modern, higher-capacity rail system.
Development is about moving forward.
Countries build modern airports and highways because economies grow and the demands of trade change. The same principle applies to rail.
Kenya needed infrastructure capable of supporting a growing economy and increasing trade. It needed to think beyond immediate needs and build for the future.
The SGR represents that forward-looking decision.
The facts about Kenya’s debt also deserve to be placed in context.
According to the latest National Treasury statistics, Kenya’s total external debt stood at approximately KSh5.68 trillion at the end of June 2026. Multilateral debt accounted for approximately KSh3.10 trillion, while commercial debt stood at about KSh1.54 trillion.
Kenya’s debt to China stood at approximately KSh616.8 billion, representing 10.8 per cent of total external debt. More significantly, the amount had declined by about 19 per cent from approximately KSh764.2 billion in 2021.
Meanwhile, Kenya’s debt to the World Bank stood at approximately KSh1.70 trillion, accounting for about 29.8 per cent of total external debt.
These figures challenge the tendency to present China’s lending as though it defines Kenya’s entire debt position. It does not.
China is an important bilateral creditor, but Kenya’s external debt is spread across multilateral, commercial and bilateral lenders. The national conversation should therefore be guided by facts rather than selective narratives.
The recent adjustment of Kenya’s SGR-related loans also demonstrates the value of constructive cooperation.
In July 2025, Kenya converted three SGR loans from US dollars into Chinese renminbi under an agreement with China Eximbank. Kenyan media estimates indicated the adjustment could save approximately KSh27.8 billion annually in debt repayments while easing pressure on foreign exchange reserves.
This demonstrates that debt arrangements can evolve in response to economic realities.
The broader point is simple: Kenya’s debt to China should not be viewed only as a liability.
It must also be viewed through the infrastructure and productive assets that the financing has created.
The SGR is not merely a figure on a debt register.
It is a railway.
It moves people between Nairobi and Mombasa. It moves cargo. It supports the Port of Mombasa and Kenya’s broader logistics network.
It represents an investment in Kenya’s long-term productive capacity.
That value does not disappear simply because the project was financed through borrowing.
Infrastructure projects are intergenerational investments. The roads, railways, ports and power systems built today are intended to support people and businesses long after the original loans have been repaid.
Kenya’s decision to build the SGR was a forward-looking decision. The country could not remain permanently dependent on infrastructure designed for an earlier era while competing in a rapidly changing regional and global economy.
A debt figure tells us what Kenya owes.
The SGR tells us what Kenya built.
And in any honest assessment of development financing, both sides of that equation must count.
Elijah Mwangi is a scholar based in Nairobi who comments on local and global affairs.
