In an earlier article, I set out perspectives on getting the basics right for Kenya's Sovereign Wealth Fund, based on comparisons with funds in other jurisdictions. This piece goes a layer deeper, examining how governance is shaped by the capital sources the 2026 Act assigns to the Fund.
Sovereign wealth funds worldwide tend to originate from two sources. The first, which applies to most nations, is natural–resource revenue. For instance, oil sustains Norway's and the UAE's funds, while diamonds fund Botswana's and copper underwrites Chile's. The second is when funds are sourced entirely from elsewhere. Singapore's Temasek, for example, was created to manage the government's shareholding in state enterprises, not to bank resource windfalls.
Kenya's fund, as established, is primarily anchored in mineral and petroleum wealth and comprises three components: the future generations fund, the stabilisation fund and the infrastructure fund. This represents a narrowing from earlier proposals. The bills that preceded the 2026 Act — notably the 2014 draft — envisaged a mixed commodity and non-commodity fund, drawing capital from both petroleum and mineral income and from other sources such as asset sales and dividends from State enterprises.
