The Ministry of Investments, Trade, and Industry recently proposed a new framework to structure constructive engagement between public and private sectors. This was introduced through the Public Sector – Private Sector Engagement Bill, 2025 whose foremost proposal is creation of the Business Council of Kenya (BCK), a state corporation intended to serve as the vehicle for public-private dialogue.

Under the proposed framework, lobby and industry bodies would be required to register with the BCK as a precursor to engaging government. The Council would be governed by a board comprising one representative from each major sector of the economy, with private sector players being invited to submit policy proposals on a quarterly basis.

While the intention of this model, to improve engagement, investment and overall business climate, is commendable, the approach risks achieving the opposite. A single, centralised engagement channel is more likely to reduce interaction between key stakeholders, weaken the quality of dialogue and undermine effective policy making.

First, diversity in advocacy matters. Kenya’s economy is diverse, dynamic and specialised. Funneling all engagements through one entity restricts the range of voices reaching policymakers, and limits plurality of perspectives necessary for balanced policy development. Innovation and economic growth thrive on contestation of ideas, not their consolidation through a single gatekeeper.

Second, the framework introduces unnecessary bureaucracy. Requiring organisations to register before they can engage the government risk of excluding important voices and ideas, whether intentional or inadvertent. Niche, smaller and emerging industries may find themselves marginalised, thereby diminishing their representation, yet they are often most affected by regulatory changes.

The proposal for quarterly submission further dilutes the model. Imagine experiencing business interruption due to clearing challenges at the Mombasa port, but having to wait for three months to submit your views or feedback. Urgent issues, whether regulatory, market shocks or compliance ambiguities, require timely engagement and solutions. Delayed responses translate to lost opportunities, disruption and real economic costs.

The proposed board structure also raises serious specialization concerns. Many sectors, particularly, finance, are complex. For instance, insurance and banking operate under distinct regulatory, operational and risk frameworks. A banker cannot effectively speak to insurance-specific regulatory challenges, just as an insurer cannot fully represent bankers’ concerns. Therefore, expecting a single representative to adequately articulate the policy needs of an entire sector risks misrepresentation.

At the end of the day, no single entity can effectively capture, aggregate and contextualize the highly diverse, technical, and rapidly evolving issues across all industries.

A more effective approach already exists within government structures. Public–private sector engagement should be the direct responsibility of each Cabinet Secretary, within their respective mandates. Ministries should identify and engage with relevant industry and lobby bodies before, during, and after policy formulation. This decentralised, sector-specific engagement model allows for depth, speed, accountability, and relevance.