In a fiery press statement dated 6 June 2025, the Central Organisation of Trade Unions, Kenya (COTU-K) lashed out at the Principal Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Charles Hinga, for what it described as “false claims” regarding COTU’s alleged involvement in drafting the controversial new Affordable Housing Regulations. This public fallout follows remarks made by PS Hinga at a public forum in Nairobi earlier in the week, where he claimed that COTU (K) was part of the team that shaped the latest regulatory framework under the Affordable Housing Programme (AHP).
According to Hinga, the regulations were developed through a consultative process that included key national stakeholders, including COTU (K). His remarks, made during a televised town hall at the Kenya School of Government on 3 June 2025, were likely aimed at defending the legitimacy of the Housing Levy amid intensifying public scrutiny and widespread scepticism. However, COTU has condemned these claims as not only misleading but also a blatant fabrication intended to create a false impression of national consensus.
In their detailed rebuttal, COTU (K) categorically denies having ever been consulted—formally or informally—in the development, review, or approval of the Affordable Housing Regulations. Dr. Francis Atwoli, Secretary General of COTU (K), issued a direct challenge to PS Hinga to produce any written resolutions, minutes, or official correspondence from COTU’s Executive Board endorsing the regulations or their drafting process. COTU insists that such documents do not exist because no such consultation took place.
The union further clarified that their representative on the Affordable Housing Fund Board, Bro. Ernest Nadome, was not involved in drafting the regulations and that his role is limited to oversight within the governance structure of the Fund—not policy formation. They cautioned PS Hinga against misrepresenting individual participation on a board as organisational endorsement, describing the tactic as “dangerous and frankly dishonest.”
At the heart of this controversy lie the new regulations that govern the collection, allocation, and use of funds from the mandatory Affordable Housing Levy. Passed under the Affordable Housing Act of 2024, the regulations grant sweeping powers to the Housing Fund Board and associated agencies to channel contributions from workers and employers into the development of housing units and related infrastructure.
However, the most contentious provision is the broad definition of “infrastructure.” Critics argue it creates a legal loophole that allows funds to be redirected to unrelated mega-projects such as roads, dams, and bridges—ventures that are already funded through other national budget lines. This raises alarm that workers’ contributions could be siphoned off for politically driven development rather than for actual affordable homes.
COTU (K)’s press statement warns of precisely this risk: “If this trend persists, the affordable housing levy would soon be redirected to do other development projects like building of roads, dams, and other heavy expense projects while leaving workers exposed without decent housing.”
The political stakes are high. President William Ruto’s administration has pitched affordable housing as a flagship agenda, promising thousands of jobs and home ownership for low- and middle-income Kenyans. But as implementation gathers pace, the levy—effectively a tax on formal employment—has drawn strong opposition from workers, unions, and civil society groups who argue that it is both punitive and poorly managed.
By attempting to link COTU (K) to the regulations, PS Hinga may have aimed to portray the labour movement as a cooperative partner in the reforms. Instead, the backlash has revealed significant fractures in stakeholder engagement and depicted the Ministry of Housing as dismissive of critical voices.
Dr. Atwoli minced no words in urging President Ruto to intervene: “We are calling upon His Excellency the President… to urgently intervene and ensure that the Affordable Housing Levy remains for delivering decent, dignified, and affordable homes for Kenyans.”
The challenge of damage control now rests with PS Hinga and the Ministry of Housing. Their credibility has been called into question, and without verifiable proof of COTU’s involvement, the narrative may continue to unravel. The broader issue—lack of transparency in the Housing Levy’s design and use—remains unaddressed.
As Parliament prepares for supplementary budget reviews and public demonstrations approach, the government’s capacity to salvage its housing programme may depend on meaningful, transparent consultation—not on retroactive justification or political spin.
For COTU (K), the struggle is not solely about reputational harm—it’s about safeguarding workers’ money, trust, and dignity. They have made it clear: they will not remain on the sidelines while billions are misused in their name.
