Why Treasury retained budget for Raila's office and pension

The National Treasury of Kenya has retained the budget allocation for the office of the late former Prime Minister Raila Odinga (and his associated pension) in the revised national budget for the financial year ending June 2026 (supplementary estimates tabled in Parliament recently).

Key details from recent reports (dated March 6, 2026):

The office budget was originally set at Sh63.27 million but was slightly reduced by Sh5 million (specifically cutting insurance costs), leaving it at Sh58.27 million.

This covers operational expenses such as staff salaries (Sh8 million), rent (Sh14.8 million), fuel (Sh4.25 million), travel, communication, and other costs.

The pension and benefits allocation for former prime minister and vice-presidents (including Moody Awori and Kalonzo Musyoka) remains unchanged at Sh86.4 million.

This decision comes nearly five months after Raila Odinga's death, sparking public discussion and questions about why funding continues without an occupant in the office.

Why was the budget retained?

No explicit official explanation has been provided by the Treasury for retaining the full allocation (beyond the minor cut). 

Pensions Secretary Michael Kagika did not respond to media requests for comment on the rationale.

However, based on the legal framework for retirement benefits of former high office holders (under laws like the Retirement Benefits Act and related provisions for former prime ministers/vice presidents):

Pensions are a lifelong entitlement (or to beneficiaries/estate/spouse in case of death), so the Sh86.4 million pooled allocation for former PM and VPs' pensions remains untouched as a matter of statutory obligation. Spouses may receive a portion (e.g., 50% in some cases), but the core pension continues.

Office and operational benefits (staff, vehicles, rent, etc.) are typically tied to the retiree's lifetime or structured as post-retirement perks. 

The retention suggests the Treasury has not yet amended or clawed back these provisions posthumously—possibly due to:

Ongoing administrative processes (e.g., winding down the office, estate handling, or pending legal/policy review).

Precedent that such institutional benefits "outlive" the individual in some interpretations (as seen in public comments calling Raila an "institution" or "4th arm of government").

Budget inertia in supplementary estimates, where major changes to entrenched votes require more deliberate action.

The minor insurance cut indicates some adjustment was made, but the core funding was preserved. 

This contrasts with cuts to other areas (e.g., some former leaders' benefits or unrelated votes).

The decision has drawn mixed reactions online, with some questioning the use of public funds for an unoccupied office, while others defend it as honoring legacy commitments.