PETITION BY VALUERS OF KENYA ON THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ASSETS VALUATION POLICY FRAMEWORK
PETITION BY VALUERS OF KENYA ON THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ASSETS VALUATION POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Issue
TO:
Mr. Felix K. Koskei, EGH
Chief of Staff and Head of The Public Service
Harambee House
Nairobi
RE: PETITION FOR THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION AND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ASSETS VALUATION POLICY FRAMEWORK AND RELATED PROPOSALS TO ALTER THE STATUTORY GOVERNANCE OF THE VALUATION PROFESSION
We, the undersigned Valuers of Kenya, submit this Petition to your Office in its central role of coordinating Government policy and supervising the operations of Ministries, State Departments and Agencies.
We have reviewed the Joint Cabinet Memorandum on the Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework for the Public Sector. We have grave concerns that the institutional and professional architecture proposed in the Memorandum is legally disruptive, professionally regressive, duplicative and potentially inimical to the public interest.
The Memorandum proposes the establishment of a Public Sector Assets Valuation Board (PSAVB), consequential amendments to the Valuers Act, Cap. 532, designation of the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury as responsible for matters relating to valuers and public sector valuation policy, and harmonisation of existing valuation frameworks under a new public-sector policy regime. Taken together, these proposals risk dismantling coherent statutory regulation of valuation in Kenya and creating a parallel system in which persons who are not professionally trained, registered and accountable as valuers may effectively undertake or determine valuation work.
We therefore petition your Office to intervene before the proposals are approved or implemented in their present form.
A. OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS
1. The proposals risk de-professionalising valuation and opening valuation practice to persons who are not trained or registered as valuers. The Memorandum identifies engineers, geologists and other officers as persons empowered under sectoral instruments to undertake aspects of public asset valuation and treats this fragmentation as a basis for a new architecture. This confuses technical input concerning an asset with professional responsibility for an opinion of value. Engineers, geologists, accountants, quantity surveyors, actuaries and other specialists may provide essential expert inputs. However, synthesising those inputs into a formal opinion of value is a distinct professional function requiring competence in bases of value, valuation approaches and methods, market evidence, highest and best use, assumptions, special assumptions, uncertainty, reporting and professional ethics. Kenya already regulates that function under the Valuers Act, Cap. 532. Knowledge of an asset is not synonymous with competence to value it.
2. The proposed Public Sector Assets Valuation Board duplicates and undermines the Valuers Registration Board. The Valuers Registration Board (VRB) is the statutory regulator established under the Valuers Act to regulate the activities and conduct of registered valuers. The proposed PSAVB is assigned oversight, quality assurance, harmonisation of valuation standards, policy guidance, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation of public asset valuation practice. These functions substantially intrude into professional regulation and standards oversight. Creating a second board does not cure fragmentation; it institutionalises fragmentation and creates uncertainty over jurisdiction, licensing, discipline, professional accountability and standards.
3. The proposed transfer of policy responsibility for valuers to the National Treasury is neither adequately justified nor institutionally neutral. Valuation is not merely an accounting or fiscal reporting function. It serves compulsory acquisition, rating, land administration, secured lending, insurance, litigation, investment, financial reporting, asset disposal, privatisation and other purposes. Moving professional policy responsibility to the National Treasury amounts to conflicts of interest as the treasury is in charge of budgeting, making payments and procurement. The addition of a valuation role would amount to lack of separation of roles and lack of accountability.
4. The Memorandum conflates accounting measurement requirements with valuation professional standards. IPSAS determines recognition, measurement and financial reporting requirements for public sector entities. International Valuation Standards (IVS) govern the performance and reporting of valuation assignments. The frameworks are complementary, not substitutes or competing systems. Public sector assets may require different bases or measurement bases because of service potential, operational capacity, restrictions or specialised use. That does not justify creating a separate Kenyan valuation profession or an isolated set of public-sector valuation standards. The applicable reporting or statutory purpose should be identified and competent valuers required to apply recognised valuation standards consistently with that purpose.
5. The premise that Kenya lacks standards capable of addressing complex or emerging asset classes is overstated. International valuation practice extends beyond land and buildings. Specialised assets may require multidisciplinary input and asset-specific expertise. That is a case for competence, collaboration and clear scopes of work—not for dispensing with the registered valuer as the professional responsible for the valuation conclusion. A geologist may advise on mineral resources, an engineer on plant or infrastructure and an accountant on financial information; such specialist input does not, by itself, confer professional competence to sign or assume responsibility for an opinion of value.
6. The proposed architecture creates an avoidable risk to independence and public confidence. The National Treasury is a major user of public asset values for financial reporting, fiscal management, transactions and asset management. Placing policy control, valuation coordination, standards harmonisation and oversight within the same institutional chain may create actual or perceived conflicts between fiscal or reporting objectives and the valuer’s duty to provide an independent opinion. Valuation governance should protect professional independence, transparent assumptions and accountability for conclusions.
7. The financial implications require stronger justification. The Memorandum estimates KSh. 6 billion for valuation of public assets over three years and an additional recurrent expenditure of KSh. 500 million annually for the proposed PSAVB. Government should first demonstrate why the existing VRB, the office of the Chief Government Valuer, the Directorate of Valuation, asset-owning entities and existing public finance institutions cannot be strengthened and coordinated. A parallel board should not be the default response to a coordination problem.
8. The consultation process is inadequate for proposals that fundamentally alter a statutory profession. The Memorandum states that extensive public participation and stakeholder consultation were undertaken. Yet the proposals go to the core of who may value, who regulates valuers, which Ministry carries responsibility for the profession and which standards govern valuation. Reform of this magnitude requires demonstrable, structured and meaningful engagement with VRB, professional bodies representing valuers, registered and practising valuers, universities offering valuation education, county governments and major users of valuation services. Consultation must inform the policy choice; it should not merely validate a predetermined institutional design.
B. THE INTERNATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION
The direction of global valuation practice is towards stronger professional competence, independence, transparency and internationally comparable standards—not dilution of professional responsibility. International Valuation Standards provide a principles-based framework intended to promote consistency, comparability and transparency across assets and liabilities.
International public sector accounting standards also provide measurement requirements responsive to the characteristics of public-sector assets, including assets held primarily for operational and service-delivery purposes. The particular characteristics of public service assets can therefore be addressed within internationally developed accounting and valuation architecture. A public-sector-specific measurement basis does not mean that unregistered persons should become valuers, nor does it require a parallel professional regulator.
Kenya should align itself with the global trajectory of strengthening recognised professional standards and competent valuation practice. The State should not create a lower or parallel threshold of professional accountability merely because the asset owner is Government. The public ownership of an asset increases, rather than diminishes, the need for independent, competent and professionally accountable valuation.
C. OUR POSITION ON THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT VALUER
We are particularly concerned by the institutional implications of relocating valuation policy responsibility to the National Treasury. The Chief Government Valuer and the Government valuation function are not merely accounting support functions. Government valuation advice extends to land administration, compulsory acquisition, public transactions, leasing, asset disposal, public asset management and numerous statutory and policy purposes.
If Government considers institutional reform necessary, it should first undertake and publish a functional review setting out the problem to be solved; the statutory functions affected; professional independence and reporting safeguards; relationships with the National Land Commission, county governments and other public bodies; the relationship with VRB; and implications for valuation purposes beyond financial reporting. The Memorandum does not presently establish a sufficient professional or institutional case for the proposed shift.
D. OUR PETITIONS AND PRAYERS
Accordingly, we respectfully petition the Chief of Staff and Head of the Public Service to:
1. CAUSE the immediate suspension of further approval and implementation of the Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework in its present form, pending comprehensive professional, legal and institutional review.
2. CONVENE an urgent consultative forum involving the Valuers Registration Board, the Valuers Society of Kenya, the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya through its Valuation and Estate Management Surveyors Chapter, the Chief Government Valuer/Directorate of Valuation, registered and practising valuers, relevant universities and other key public-sector stakeholders.
3. REJECT any provision, policy or legislative amendment that permits a person who is not duly registered and licensed under the Valuers Act, Cap. 532 to undertake, sign, certify or assume professional responsibility for a valuation, irrespective of whether the asset is public or private.
4. REJECT the establishment of the proposed Public Sector Assets Valuation Board in its current form and instead strengthen VRB as the single statutory regulator of valuation practice, while establishing an inter-agency public assets valuation coordination mechanism that does not duplicate professional regulation.
5. DIRECT the development of public asset valuation implementation guidance aligned with International Valuation Standards and The Kenya Valuation Standards rather than creating a separate and competing public-sector valuation standards regime.
6. SUBJECT the proposal to move responsibility for valuers and valuation policy to the National Treasury to a transparent institutional, legal and professional impact assessment before any amendment to the Valuers Act is introduced.
7. RETAIN and strengthen the professional independence of the Chief Government Valuer and the Government valuation function within an institutional framework suited to the Government-wide nature of valuation, and ensure that any proposed relocation is supported by clear functional justification and broad stakeholder consultation.
8. UNDERTAKE a comprehensive legal review of the proposed Policy against the Valuers Act, Cap. 532 and statutes that expressly require valuation by registered or licensed valuers, to avoid conflicting mandates and legal uncertainty.
9. PUBLISH the full Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework, stakeholder consultation report and regulatory impact analysis for professional and public scrutiny before consequential legislation is initiated.
10. RECONSIDER the proposed KSh. 500 million annual recurrent expenditure for a new Board against the more prudent alternative of strengthening existing statutory and technical institutions.
E. CONCLUSION
We reiterate that the valuation profession supports the Government’s objective of establishing a complete, credible and auditable record of public assets. Registered valuers are indispensable to that objective.
However, a policy intended to improve public asset governance must not achieve that objective by weakening the statutory profession entrusted with valuation, duplicating its regulator, blurring professional accountability or creating a separate valuation system for Government assets. Public assets remain assets requiring competent, independent and standards-compliant valuation. Their public ownership increases—not reduces—the need for professional accountability.
The proposals contained in the Joint Cabinet Memorandum are therefore of grave concern to the valuation profession. If implemented without fundamental review, they risk causing long-term and potentially irreversible damage to valuation practice, professional education, public confidence and the quality and defensibility of valuation advice relied upon by Government hence compromised Ethics and Reliability of valuation reports.
We Demand your urgent intervention and an opportunity for the valuation profession to present its technical, professional and legal concerns before any further action is taken.
521
The Issue
TO:
Mr. Felix K. Koskei, EGH
Chief of Staff and Head of The Public Service
Harambee House
Nairobi
RE: PETITION FOR THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION AND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ASSETS VALUATION POLICY FRAMEWORK AND RELATED PROPOSALS TO ALTER THE STATUTORY GOVERNANCE OF THE VALUATION PROFESSION
We, the undersigned Valuers of Kenya, submit this Petition to your Office in its central role of coordinating Government policy and supervising the operations of Ministries, State Departments and Agencies.
We have reviewed the Joint Cabinet Memorandum on the Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework for the Public Sector. We have grave concerns that the institutional and professional architecture proposed in the Memorandum is legally disruptive, professionally regressive, duplicative and potentially inimical to the public interest.
The Memorandum proposes the establishment of a Public Sector Assets Valuation Board (PSAVB), consequential amendments to the Valuers Act, Cap. 532, designation of the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury as responsible for matters relating to valuers and public sector valuation policy, and harmonisation of existing valuation frameworks under a new public-sector policy regime. Taken together, these proposals risk dismantling coherent statutory regulation of valuation in Kenya and creating a parallel system in which persons who are not professionally trained, registered and accountable as valuers may effectively undertake or determine valuation work.
We therefore petition your Office to intervene before the proposals are approved or implemented in their present form.
A. OUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS
1. The proposals risk de-professionalising valuation and opening valuation practice to persons who are not trained or registered as valuers. The Memorandum identifies engineers, geologists and other officers as persons empowered under sectoral instruments to undertake aspects of public asset valuation and treats this fragmentation as a basis for a new architecture. This confuses technical input concerning an asset with professional responsibility for an opinion of value. Engineers, geologists, accountants, quantity surveyors, actuaries and other specialists may provide essential expert inputs. However, synthesising those inputs into a formal opinion of value is a distinct professional function requiring competence in bases of value, valuation approaches and methods, market evidence, highest and best use, assumptions, special assumptions, uncertainty, reporting and professional ethics. Kenya already regulates that function under the Valuers Act, Cap. 532. Knowledge of an asset is not synonymous with competence to value it.
2. The proposed Public Sector Assets Valuation Board duplicates and undermines the Valuers Registration Board. The Valuers Registration Board (VRB) is the statutory regulator established under the Valuers Act to regulate the activities and conduct of registered valuers. The proposed PSAVB is assigned oversight, quality assurance, harmonisation of valuation standards, policy guidance, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation of public asset valuation practice. These functions substantially intrude into professional regulation and standards oversight. Creating a second board does not cure fragmentation; it institutionalises fragmentation and creates uncertainty over jurisdiction, licensing, discipline, professional accountability and standards.
3. The proposed transfer of policy responsibility for valuers to the National Treasury is neither adequately justified nor institutionally neutral. Valuation is not merely an accounting or fiscal reporting function. It serves compulsory acquisition, rating, land administration, secured lending, insurance, litigation, investment, financial reporting, asset disposal, privatisation and other purposes. Moving professional policy responsibility to the National Treasury amounts to conflicts of interest as the treasury is in charge of budgeting, making payments and procurement. The addition of a valuation role would amount to lack of separation of roles and lack of accountability.
4. The Memorandum conflates accounting measurement requirements with valuation professional standards. IPSAS determines recognition, measurement and financial reporting requirements for public sector entities. International Valuation Standards (IVS) govern the performance and reporting of valuation assignments. The frameworks are complementary, not substitutes or competing systems. Public sector assets may require different bases or measurement bases because of service potential, operational capacity, restrictions or specialised use. That does not justify creating a separate Kenyan valuation profession or an isolated set of public-sector valuation standards. The applicable reporting or statutory purpose should be identified and competent valuers required to apply recognised valuation standards consistently with that purpose.
5. The premise that Kenya lacks standards capable of addressing complex or emerging asset classes is overstated. International valuation practice extends beyond land and buildings. Specialised assets may require multidisciplinary input and asset-specific expertise. That is a case for competence, collaboration and clear scopes of work—not for dispensing with the registered valuer as the professional responsible for the valuation conclusion. A geologist may advise on mineral resources, an engineer on plant or infrastructure and an accountant on financial information; such specialist input does not, by itself, confer professional competence to sign or assume responsibility for an opinion of value.
6. The proposed architecture creates an avoidable risk to independence and public confidence. The National Treasury is a major user of public asset values for financial reporting, fiscal management, transactions and asset management. Placing policy control, valuation coordination, standards harmonisation and oversight within the same institutional chain may create actual or perceived conflicts between fiscal or reporting objectives and the valuer’s duty to provide an independent opinion. Valuation governance should protect professional independence, transparent assumptions and accountability for conclusions.
7. The financial implications require stronger justification. The Memorandum estimates KSh. 6 billion for valuation of public assets over three years and an additional recurrent expenditure of KSh. 500 million annually for the proposed PSAVB. Government should first demonstrate why the existing VRB, the office of the Chief Government Valuer, the Directorate of Valuation, asset-owning entities and existing public finance institutions cannot be strengthened and coordinated. A parallel board should not be the default response to a coordination problem.
8. The consultation process is inadequate for proposals that fundamentally alter a statutory profession. The Memorandum states that extensive public participation and stakeholder consultation were undertaken. Yet the proposals go to the core of who may value, who regulates valuers, which Ministry carries responsibility for the profession and which standards govern valuation. Reform of this magnitude requires demonstrable, structured and meaningful engagement with VRB, professional bodies representing valuers, registered and practising valuers, universities offering valuation education, county governments and major users of valuation services. Consultation must inform the policy choice; it should not merely validate a predetermined institutional design.
B. THE INTERNATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION
The direction of global valuation practice is towards stronger professional competence, independence, transparency and internationally comparable standards—not dilution of professional responsibility. International Valuation Standards provide a principles-based framework intended to promote consistency, comparability and transparency across assets and liabilities.
International public sector accounting standards also provide measurement requirements responsive to the characteristics of public-sector assets, including assets held primarily for operational and service-delivery purposes. The particular characteristics of public service assets can therefore be addressed within internationally developed accounting and valuation architecture. A public-sector-specific measurement basis does not mean that unregistered persons should become valuers, nor does it require a parallel professional regulator.
Kenya should align itself with the global trajectory of strengthening recognised professional standards and competent valuation practice. The State should not create a lower or parallel threshold of professional accountability merely because the asset owner is Government. The public ownership of an asset increases, rather than diminishes, the need for independent, competent and professionally accountable valuation.
C. OUR POSITION ON THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT VALUER
We are particularly concerned by the institutional implications of relocating valuation policy responsibility to the National Treasury. The Chief Government Valuer and the Government valuation function are not merely accounting support functions. Government valuation advice extends to land administration, compulsory acquisition, public transactions, leasing, asset disposal, public asset management and numerous statutory and policy purposes.
If Government considers institutional reform necessary, it should first undertake and publish a functional review setting out the problem to be solved; the statutory functions affected; professional independence and reporting safeguards; relationships with the National Land Commission, county governments and other public bodies; the relationship with VRB; and implications for valuation purposes beyond financial reporting. The Memorandum does not presently establish a sufficient professional or institutional case for the proposed shift.
D. OUR PETITIONS AND PRAYERS
Accordingly, we respectfully petition the Chief of Staff and Head of the Public Service to:
1. CAUSE the immediate suspension of further approval and implementation of the Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework in its present form, pending comprehensive professional, legal and institutional review.
2. CONVENE an urgent consultative forum involving the Valuers Registration Board, the Valuers Society of Kenya, the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya through its Valuation and Estate Management Surveyors Chapter, the Chief Government Valuer/Directorate of Valuation, registered and practising valuers, relevant universities and other key public-sector stakeholders.
3. REJECT any provision, policy or legislative amendment that permits a person who is not duly registered and licensed under the Valuers Act, Cap. 532 to undertake, sign, certify or assume professional responsibility for a valuation, irrespective of whether the asset is public or private.
4. REJECT the establishment of the proposed Public Sector Assets Valuation Board in its current form and instead strengthen VRB as the single statutory regulator of valuation practice, while establishing an inter-agency public assets valuation coordination mechanism that does not duplicate professional regulation.
5. DIRECT the development of public asset valuation implementation guidance aligned with International Valuation Standards and The Kenya Valuation Standards rather than creating a separate and competing public-sector valuation standards regime.
6. SUBJECT the proposal to move responsibility for valuers and valuation policy to the National Treasury to a transparent institutional, legal and professional impact assessment before any amendment to the Valuers Act is introduced.
7. RETAIN and strengthen the professional independence of the Chief Government Valuer and the Government valuation function within an institutional framework suited to the Government-wide nature of valuation, and ensure that any proposed relocation is supported by clear functional justification and broad stakeholder consultation.
8. UNDERTAKE a comprehensive legal review of the proposed Policy against the Valuers Act, Cap. 532 and statutes that expressly require valuation by registered or licensed valuers, to avoid conflicting mandates and legal uncertainty.
9. PUBLISH the full Proposed Public Assets Valuation Policy Framework, stakeholder consultation report and regulatory impact analysis for professional and public scrutiny before consequential legislation is initiated.
10. RECONSIDER the proposed KSh. 500 million annual recurrent expenditure for a new Board against the more prudent alternative of strengthening existing statutory and technical institutions.
E. CONCLUSION
We reiterate that the valuation profession supports the Government’s objective of establishing a complete, credible and auditable record of public assets. Registered valuers are indispensable to that objective.
However, a policy intended to improve public asset governance must not achieve that objective by weakening the statutory profession entrusted with valuation, duplicating its regulator, blurring professional accountability or creating a separate valuation system for Government assets. Public assets remain assets requiring competent, independent and standards-compliant valuation. Their public ownership increases—not reduces—the need for professional accountability.
The proposals contained in the Joint Cabinet Memorandum are therefore of grave concern to the valuation profession. If implemented without fundamental review, they risk causing long-term and potentially irreversible damage to valuation practice, professional education, public confidence and the quality and defensibility of valuation advice relied upon by Government hence compromised Ethics and Reliability of valuation reports.
We Demand your urgent intervention and an opportunity for the valuation profession to present its technical, professional and legal concerns before any further action is taken.
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 13 July 2026