Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has renewed his criticism of President William Ruto’s affordable housing programme arguing that the scheme should not be imposed on Kenyans who do not wish to participate.
Gachagua described the housing initiative as a government business project rather than a genuine programme designed to address the housing needs of ordinary citizens.
He maintained that Kenyans should be given the freedom to decide whether they want to contribute to or benefit from the scheme.
According to Gachagua, making the programme compulsory places an additional financial burden on households already struggling with the rising cost of living.
He argued that workers and other taxpayers should not be forced to finance a programme whose benefits they may never directly enjoy.
“The housing scheme is Ruto’s business and not genuine. It should be made optional to Kenyans,” Gachagua said.
The former Deputy President has previously criticised government policies that require Kenyans to make additional deductions from their earnings.
His latest remarks are likely to reignite debate over the sustainability, fairness and constitutionality of the housing financing model.
The affordable housing programme is one of the flagship initiatives of the Ruto administration and is intended to increase access to decent and affordable homes while creating employment opportunities in the construction sector.
The government has presented the initiative as a long-term solution to Kenya’s housing shortage, particularly for low and middle income households.
However, critics have questioned whether compulsory contributions are the appropriate way to finance the programme.
They argue that Kenyans should have greater control over how their income is spent, especially at a time when many families are facing high food, transport, education and utility costs.
Gachagua’s comments also place the housing programme at the centre of the growing political contest ahead of the 2027 General Election.
His criticism could resonate with Kenyans who believe that government policies should be based on voluntary participation where possible rather than compulsory deductions.
Supporters of the programme, on the other hand, are likely to argue that large scale housing projects require predictable financing and that government intervention is necessary to address the country’s housing deficit.
The debate therefore goes beyond the housing levy itself.
It raises broader questions about taxation, public spending, government priorities and the extent to which citizens should be compelled to finance state programmes.
As political temperatures rise, Gachagua’s latest remarks are expected to add pressure on the government to explain how the housing programme is benefiting ordinary Kenyans and why participation should remain compulsory.
For now, the former Deputy President insists that Kenyans deserve a choice: those who want the housing programme should participate while those who do not should not be forced to pay for it.