Questions are mounting over the role of a private company called Apeiro in the creation of Kenya’s Social Health Authority system, a project that has reportedly cost taxpayers more than Sh104 billion.
The controversy has drawn attention from lawmakers, auditors, and the public, who now want to understand how the company was brought on board and whether the process followed the required procurement laws.
Alongside Apeiro, another firm named Livia has also been mentioned as having taken part in the development and operation of key parts of the SHA digital system.
Recent reports indicate that Parliament and oversight bodies are demanding answers from the Ministry of Health on how these two companies were selected, the amount of money they have received so far, and the specific work they are handling under the project.
The Auditor-General’s office has already flagged the matter, revealing that certain crucial components of the system, including the management of sensitive health and patient data, are currently being controlled by private firms.
This finding has sparked widespread concern about the safety of public information, possible corruption, and the lack of transparency in the awarding of contracts.
Lawmakers have summoned officials from the Ministry of Health to appear before parliamentary committees to give a full account of how the SHA project has been managed.
They are demanding details on the ownership and control of the system, raising questions about why tasks that could have been done by government agencies were instead handed over to private companies.
Several leaders argue that depending heavily on private players in a public health initiative risks driving up costs and reducing the reliability of services in the long term.
They fear it could also expose Kenyans’ personal medical data to misuse or unauthorized access.
Others, however, have taken a different view. They believe that private firms like Apeiro and Livia could help the government deliver better technology and efficiency, provided that everything is done transparently and under strict supervision.
They argue that collaboration between the public and private sectors can sometimes lead to faster progress and improved service delivery if the right checks are in place.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission is also expected to look into how the contracts were awarded, especially to determine whether due process was followed and whether any public funds were misused.
Kenyans are hoping for clarity on how the SHA system was developed, who benefited financially, and whether the project is fulfilling its main goal of improving access to quality healthcare for all citizens.
The unfolding issue has now become a major test of the government’s dedication to openness and accountability in managing national health reforms.
Add Comment