Kenya’s central bank is seeking stronger powers to intervene in struggling payment companies, appoint statutory managers and sell their assets or businesses under a proposed overhaul of the country’s payments framework.

The draft National Payment System Bill, 2026, published by the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and the National Treasury, would allow the regulator to step into a payment service provider’s management if it fails to meet obligations to customers or other financial institutions, breaches regulatory requirements or threatens financial stability.

The proposal could significantly change how Kenya handles payment-company failures. Instead of relying only on licensing sanctions or liquidation, the regulator could take control of a troubled provider’s operations and assets, appoint a statutory manager and determine how its business should be handled.

The bill remains a proposal, not an enacted law. The CBK published it for public consultation on 21 September 2026, with the consultation closing on 9 October. Its provisions could change before becoming law. 

How the proposed takeover powers would work

Section 21 of the draft bill sets out circumstances in which CBK could intervene in a payment service provider or payment system operator. These include failure to meet obligations to customers, failure to meet financial obligations to other payment firms or settlement systems, non-compliance with a central bank directive, and breaches of the proposed law.

The regulator could also intervene during a crisis to protect customers, preserve financial stability and maintain public confidence in the financial system.

Under the proposal, CBK could appoint a statutory manager, direct the removal of officers or employees considered responsible for a company’s deterioration, appoint a qualified person to its board and restrict its ability to take on new payment business or appoint additional agents.

The powers would give the regulator a route to act before a troubled provider’s remaining assets and operations are lost through a disorderly collapse. 

Statutory managers could sell a company’s business

The draft goes beyond replacing a company’s leadership. It proposes a formal statutory-management process under which the appointed manager could take control of the provider’s assets to safeguard customer money and oversee the settlement of customer funds.

The manager could also sell or otherwise dispose of the company’s assets and business undertaking, through a private treaty, public auction or another method considered appropriate under the bill.

Once a statutory manager is appointed, the powers of directors, significant shareholders, senior officers and trustees would cease, except where the manager permits them to continue. The manager would not need to obtain shareholders’ or creditors’ approval for certain transactions carried out under the statutory-management provisions.

These measures could help preserve a viable business or transfer its operations to another owner. But they would also sharply reduce the control that founders, directors and investors could exercise over a company under intervention.

The bill proposes that a statutory manager would normally serve for up to 12 months, with a possible extension of up to another 12 months subject to High Court approval. 

Customer funds would be a priority but access could be interrupted

The proposed regime is designed to protect money held for customers and oversee the settlement of those funds. That does not mean every customer would necessarily retain uninterrupted access to their money throughout an intervention.

The draft expressly permits a statutory manager to suspend payments to customers and other creditors while managing the provider’s affairs. The suspension would apply equally and without discrimination to creditor classes under the bill’s terms.

For customers, merchants and businesses that depend on payment firms, this is an important distinction. A regulatory takeover may help prevent a disorderly collapse, but it could also involve temporary restrictions while the company’s assets, obligations and payment flows are assessed.

For merchants, delays can affect access to sales proceeds. For users, a disruption can make it harder to transfer or withdraw funds. For other financial institutions, a provider’s failure to meet settlement obligations can create wider operational problems.

The proposed law therefore seeks to strengthen the regulator’s ability to manage a failure, rather than promising that intervention will prevent all service disruptions. 

Kenya has taken action against payment firms before

CBK has previously withdrawn authorisation from payment providers over regulatory concerns. In October 2021, it revoked the authorisation of Mobile Pay, which operated under the Tangaza brand, citing regulatory breaches that put customer funds at risk.

The regulator said the company failed to submit required audited accounts for its business and trust fund, alongside security audits and other reports.

The draft bill would provide a more detailed statutory framework for intervention and management. It also builds on the kind of resolution powers already used in the banking sector, where authorities have had to decide whether to restore operations, transfer business or proceed towards liquidation.

The proposed framework could make the options available for payment firms more explicit and create a clearer process for taking control of their assets and business operations. 

A wider overhaul of Kenya’s payments rules

The draft bill would repeal and replace Kenya’s National Payment System Act of 2011. Its scope extends beyond company failures to licensing, minimum capital requirements, trust accounts, interoperability, open finance, outsourcing, payment transparency and insolvency.

It would also set out a licensing framework for payment service providers and payment system operators, with requirements covering financial condition, management suitability, capital structure, data handling, system resilience and consumer protection.

That broader framework matters for fintech startups and other firms seeking to enter the payments market. Clearer licensing rules could provide a more defined route to authorisation, while stronger oversight and capital requirements could raise the cost and complexity of operating a regulated payment business.

Kenya’s proposed payments bill would give the central bank a more direct role in resolving failures at regulated payment companies. Its strongest provisions concern the ability to appoint a statutory manager, take control of assets, suspend payments when necessary and sell a troubled provider’s business.

For customers, the goal is to safeguard funds and maintain confidence in digital payments. For fintech founders and investors, the proposal raises important questions about governance, compliance and how much control owners could retain during a regulatory intervention.

The bill is not yet law, and its final provisions may change. But the direction is clear: Kenya is considering a more formal resolution framework for payment firms, placing customer protection and stability at the centre of how troubled providers would be handled.