OPINION: Reforming the house, not just renaming the roof

The recent public debate questioning the proposed transition of the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to the Kenya Revenue Service (KRS) raises valid legitimate concerns about public spending and accountability.

However, most sentiments present an incomplete picture of the purpose, context, and global practice surrounding institutional rebranding in tax administration.

First, the proposal to rename KRA did not emerge as a casual public relations exercise. In May 2022, the Kenya Revenue Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2022 was formally tabled in Parliament. Its principal objective was to amend the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, 1995 to change the institution’s name from Authority to Service. The Bill also sought to align other statutes referencing KRA with the new designation. This was a legislative process, not an administrative whim.

At the time, the then Majority Leader and Kipipiri Member of Parliament Amos Kimunya argued that the change was necessary to address entrenched negative public perceptions. The term Authority, he noted, often connotes coercion and command.

In a modern tax system built on voluntary compliance, partnership, and trust, that perception matters. Tax compliance is not driven by enforcement alone; it is influenced significantly by how taxpayers perceive the institution that collects revenue.

Rebranding, therefore, was not framed as cosmetic. It was intended to reposition the agency as a service-oriented institution, one focused on taxpayers’ rights, facilitation, and responsiveness. A shift from Authority to Service signals a philosophical transition, from command-and-control to engagement-and-compliance. In public finance management, language shapes culture, and culture shapes outcomes.

The concern is that changing a name does not reform systems. That is correct in isolation. But institutional transformation is rarely singular. Structural reform often includes legislative amendments, cultural reorientation, digital modernisation, and public re-engagement. A name change can serve as both a legal reset and a symbolic anchor for deeper reforms. It is not the reform itself, it is part of the reform architecture.

It is also important to clarify the issue of cost. During the 2022 process, the projected rebranding budget stood at KSh 2.7 billion, to be implemented in two phases of approximately KSh 1.34 billion each. However, that Bill was later withdrawn following radical proposals on the floor of the House. Members of Parliament further emphasised that cultural change must accompany any name change. Once the Bill was withdrawn, the associated budget could not be implemented as planned. It is therefore inaccurate to cite those earlier projections as though they represent confirmed or current expenditure. A withdrawn legislative proposal must be amended and this include the budget aspect. It is also important to note that rebranding, however small it is, must be accompanied by a cost.

Moreover, rebranding tax administrations is neither unprecedented nor uniquely Kenyan. Just two months ago, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) was officially rebranded as the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) following the enactment of the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Act of 2025. The transition, which took effect on 1st  January, 2026, was designed to modernise tax administration, unify revenue collection, and improve compliance under a service-oriented framework. Kenya is not inventing a novelty, it is participating in a broader evolution in revenue governance.

Globally, tax authorities are repositioning themselves to balance enforcement with facilitation. As economies formalise and digitalise, compliance depends less on fear and more on trust, clarity, and perceived fairness. In this context, branding is not mere optics; it communicates institutional intent. When paired with digital upgrades, taxpayer education, dispute resolution reform, and internal culture shifts, it can strengthen voluntary compliance and broaden the tax base.

Critics are right to demand accountability. They are right to question prioritisation in times of fiscal pressure. But it is equally important to distinguish between wasteful extravagance and strategic institutional reform. Not every structural change is vanity. Not every rebranding is cosmetic. Sometimes it reflects a conscious attempt to reset public relationships and align institutions with contemporary governance standards.

The deeper question is whether Kenya wants a tax agency defined primarily by enforcement narratives or one defined by service delivery, rights protection, and partnership with citizens. If the latter, then transformation must begin somewhere, in law, in culture, and yes, even in name.

Reform is not achieved by logos alone. But neither is it achieved by dismissing every structural shift as theatre. The real test will not be what the institution is called, but whether the transformation is accompanied by measurable improvements in efficiency, fairness, transparency, and taxpayer experience.

That is the standard against which any rebranding, if undertaken, should be judged.

The Writer is a Financial Communication Strategist