President William Ruto of Kenya pledged to reduce the number of government advisors by 50% as part of a broader strategy to cut unnecessary government spending and improve service delivery.
This promise was made during his State of the Nation address, where he emphasized the need to streamline government operations.However, recent actions have raised questions about his commitment to this promise.
In November 2024, reports indicated that State House planned to hire more consultants, just months after the President pledged austerity measures to reduce government spending.
Additionally, President Ruto appointed four new advisors to his Council of Economic Advisers, including Prof. Adams Oloo, Mr. Joe Ager, and Dr. Silvester Kasuku all allies of opposition leader Raila Odinga.
These appointments come amid significant economic challenges in Kenya, including a ballooning public debt, high unemployment rates, and overtaxed workers, which have led to anti-government sentiments.
The expansion of the economic advisory team has been viewed by some as a move to shore up support by incorporating opposition figures into the government.
Critics argue that these actions contradict the President’s earlier commitment to reduce the size of government.
The decision to expand the team of economic advisors, despite promises of austerity, has led to skepticism about the administration’s dedication to fiscal responsibility.
The hiring of additional consultants and advisors suggests a potential backtrack on austerity measures, raising concerns about the effective implementation of policies aimed at reducing government expenditure.
The inclusion of opposition figures in the advisory team has been interpreted as a political strategy to solidify the President’s hold on power amidst increasing criticism of his administration.
While this move may promote inclusivity, it also raises questions about the genuine intent behind the appointments and whether they serve the nation’s best interests or political expediency.
President Ruto’s recent appointments and the expansion of his economic advisory team appear to contradict his earlier promises to reduce the number of government advisors by 50%.
These actions have led to doubts about his commitment to reducing the size of government and implementing austerity measures.
The incorporation of opposition figures into the advisory team further complicates the narrative, suggesting a blend of political maneuvering and govenance.
The effectiveness and sincerity of the President’s strategies remain under radar.
