There's something interesting about the way we talk about Fuliza in Kenya.
Ask someone about their Fuliza limit.
"Mimi niko na 10K."
Someone else has 20K.
Another has 50K.
And sometimes the conversation almost sounds like people comparing their savings.
😂
You hear someone mention their limit, and there's a little pride in it.
Safaricom imenipandishia limit.
I understand why.
Having money available when you urgently need it feels reassuring.
You want to send someone money, but your M-PESA balance isn't enough?
Fuliza.
You need to pay a bill before your money arrives?
Fuliza.
You're at a shop and realise you're short?
Fuliza.
It's convenient.
Very convenient.
And perhaps that's what makes it so interesting.
At what point does something designed to help you complete a transaction become something you depend on to complete almost every transaction?
I hadn't thought deeply about that question until I came across an example that made me reach for a calculator.
The KSh 25,000 That Wouldn't Disappear
Imagine someone who has an outstanding Fuliza balance of KSh 25,000.
They transact frequently.
Money comes into their M-PESA.
Money goes out.
Business continues.
Life continues.
But something keeps happening.
Deductions.
In the example I encountered, the person reportedly had around KSh 500 deducted daily.
And this had apparently been happening for three years.
Here's the part that caught my attention.
The person hadn't taken another Fuliza advance.
At least, that was how the situation was described to me.
So I started wondering.
If you're no longer borrowing, why does the outstanding balance still feel impossible to escape?
And where exactly is the deducted money going?
I took the reported daily amount and multiplied it.
KSh 500 × 365 days × 3 years = KSh 547,500.
Half a million shillings.
From an original balance of KSh 25,000.
That's almost 22 times the original amount.
I looked at the number again.
Because it didn't feel right.
Now, there's an important distinction: this is a calculation based on the reported deductions, not proof that Fuliza charged KSh 547,500 in interest or fees.
Safaricom's published personal Fuliza tariff doesn't support KSh 500 as the standard daily maintenance fee for a KSh 25,000 balance. The actual transaction statements would be needed to separate repayments, charges, taxes, and any other account activity.
But that uncertainty didn't make me lose interest.
It made me more curious.
What if the money leaving someone's account isn't telling them the same story as the balance they're watching?
The Money You Notice and the Money You Don't
Imagine someone asking you to pay KSh 180,000 in one year just to keep access to KSh 25,000.
You'd probably stop and ask questions.
A lot of questions.
But KSh 500 today?
Then tomorrow?
Then another day?
It might not create the same reaction.
Especially when your account is constantly moving.
You receive KSh 2,000.
Something is deducted.
You receive another KSh 5,000.
Something else is deducted.
You make a payment.
You continue with your day.
The money never really stays long enough for you to feel like you had it.
And after a while, deductions can start feeling like part of the normal movement of money.
That's what I find uncomfortable.
Not simply that credit has a cost.
We know that.
But how easily can a cost become so familiar that we stop asking what we're actually paying for?
How Fuliza Repayments Actually Work
This part surprised me less after reading Safaricom's terms.
Fuliza allows money received into an M-PESA account to be applied automatically toward outstanding obligations.
And according to the published terms, repayments go toward interest and fees before reducing the outstanding facility balance.
So a deduction and a reduction in principal aren't necessarily the same thing.
There's also a one-off access fee and daily maintenance charges, depending on the amount borrowed and the applicable terms.
That made me think about something.
Most of us know how to check our Fuliza balance.
Some know their limit almost by heart.
But how many people could tell you the total fees they've paid over the last year?
Not how much they've borrowed.
Not how much they've repaid.
How much they've paid for the service itself.
Those are different numbers.
And maybe the distinction matters more than we realise.
When Did a Higher Borrowing Limit Become Good News?
There's another part of this that fascinates me.
We sometimes celebrate an increase in our Fuliza limit.
From KSh 5,000 to KSh 10,000.
From KSh 10,000 to KSh 20,000.
It's understandable.
A higher limit means more money is available when you need to complete a transaction.
But I wonder whether we're confusing two very different forms of progress.
Having access to more money.
And:
Having more money of your own.
Imagine two people.
One says:
"My Fuliza limit is KSh 30,000."
The other says:
"I've saved KSh 30,000 for upcoming payments."
Both might be able to complete a KSh 20,000 transaction.
But the experience afterward is different.
One has an obligation to repay.
The other has used money already set aside.
I'm not saying one person is more successful than the other.
Life is rarely that simple.
Sometimes credit is exactly what keeps a business moving.
Sometimes a payment cannot wait.
But it makes me wonder:
Why does an increase in what we can owe sometimes feel more exciting than an increase in what we actually own?
And Then There's the Difficulty of Leaving
This might be the most interesting part.
Imagine you've decided you no longer want to rely on Fuliza.
You want to stop using it.
You want your incoming M-PESA money to remain available for your own transactions.
But there's still an outstanding balance.
That balance needs to be settled.
And if you're already depending on the overdraft to make everyday payments, clearing it can be difficult.
So you keep using the facility.
Not necessarily because you want to.
But because the money you would use to escape the cycle is also the money you need to survive the day.
I wonder how many people find themselves in that position.
Not making a deliberate decision to depend on credit indefinitely.
Just making one reasonable decision after another.
Until the temporary solution becomes a permanent part of how they handle money.
Maybe the Problem Isn't Borrowing
I've been thinking about this carefully.
Because it's easy to make Fuliza the villain of the story.
But that would miss something.
Fuliza exists because it solves a real problem.
People run short of money.
Payments don't always wait for income.
Businesses experience cash-flow gaps.
Emergencies happen.
The ability to complete a transaction when your balance is insufficient can be genuinely useful.
So perhaps the more interesting question isn't:
Why do people borrow?
Maybe it's:
Why do so many everyday payments eventually depend on borrowing?
Think about it.
Money comes in.
Bills are waiting.
Stock needs to be purchased.
Someone needs to be paid.
A supplier is asking for payment.
Savings are somewhere else.
Business money is mixed with personal money.
Records are in notebooks, spreadsheets, and WhatsApp conversations.
And somewhere in the middle of all that, the easiest available solution becomes an overdraft.
Not necessarily because it's the cheapest option.
But because it's right there when you need it.
What If the Money Was Already There, Just Not Where You Needed It?
This question started taking me in a different direction.
Imagine someone who belongs to a Chama.
They contribute regularly.
They have savings.
Maybe they also run a small business.
Money is coming in through sales.
Money is being saved.
Money is being moved between different accounts and people.
But when a payment needs to be made, the easiest available option might still be borrowing.
That's strange.
Not because everyone necessarily has enough savings to cover every payment.
They don't.
But because our financial activities can be so disconnected.
We save in one place.
Manage business transactions somewhere else.
Borrow through another service.
Communicate through WhatsApp.
Track balances in Excel.
And then move money around just to complete a payment.
What if those activities didn't have to feel so separate?
This Is Where KIT-IFMS Comes into the Picture
This is one of the questions behind something we're building.
KIT-IFMS — an integrated financial workspace designed for SACCOs, Chamas, cooperatives, and growing businesses.
The idea isn't to create another place where people simply borrow money.
It's to bring more of the activities surrounding money into one connected system.
- Savings
- Group finances
- Transfers
- Peer-to-peer lending
- Business operations
- Inventory
- Payments
- Communication
Instead of managing everything through disconnected tools, KIT-IFMS is designed to make money and the activities around it easier to see and manage together.
And the part that interests me most in relation to Fuliza is this:
What if making a payment didn't automatically mean looking for more credit?
Imagine having money saved within a financial system.
A payment comes up.
Rather than immediately reaching for an overdraft, you first consider the funds already available to you.
For businesses, imagine being able to manage incoming money, savings, and outgoing payments through a more connected process.
KIT-IFMS already provides savings, withdrawals, member and group transfers, and tools for managing business finances.
The broader direction we're working toward includes making it easier to use available funds for eligible payments — including external PayBill transactions — directly through the financial system.
That doesn't mean everybody will suddenly stop needing Fuliza.
It doesn't mean credit is bad.
And it certainly doesn't mean a person with an existing overdraft can simply move to another platform and make that debt disappear.
But perhaps it creates another option.
Use money you've already set aside when it's available, rather than automatically creating another borrowing obligation.
That's a much more interesting financial experience to me than simply increasing how much someone is allowed to borrow.
Maybe Financial Progress Needs a Different Measurement
I keep coming back to the same thought.
We have become very good at measuring access to credit.
Your limit.
Your eligibility.
How much you can borrow.
How quickly you can receive it.
And those things matter.
But what about the other measurements?
- How much money did you manage to retain this month?
- How much did you save?
- How much did you spend servicing credit?
- How many payments did you complete without borrowing?
- How much of your business income is actually available after obligations?
Those questions aren't as exciting as:
"Congratulations! Your limit has increased."
But maybe they're worth asking.
Especially when someone can spend years transacting, receiving money, making repayments — and still feel like they're standing in the same financial position.
I'm Still Thinking About That KSh 25,000
I don't know the full story behind the person I mentioned.
I'd need to see the transaction history to understand exactly what happened.
Maybe some of the reported KSh 500 deductions reduced the principal.
Maybe there were other charges or obligations involved.
Maybe the situation was described inaccurately.
I don't want to turn an unexplained number into a claim about what Fuliza normally charges.
But I also don't want to ignore the question it raised.
How much money can pass through someone's account without their financial position actually improving?
Because someone can transact millions over several years and still have very little available when they need it.
A business can record impressive sales and still struggle to pay a supplier.
A person can have a high credit limit and still have no emergency savings.
Money moving isn't always the same as money growing.
And borrowing capacity isn't the same as financial independence.
So Perhaps the Question Isn't How Much You Can Fuliza
Maybe it's how often you actually need to.
Maybe it's how much using that facility has cost you over time.
Maybe it's whether the money you've saved is accessible when a payment comes up.
Maybe it's whether your financial tools are helping you understand where your money goes.
That's part of the thinking behind KIT-IFMS.
Not another promise that money problems will disappear.
Just a different question about how money could work.
What if we made saving, managing, and paying with money we already have as convenient as borrowing money we don't?
You can explore what we're building here:
KIT-IFMS — A connected financial workspace for Africa →
And I'm curious about something.
Forget your Fuliza limit for a moment.
If you checked your M-PESA statements today, would you know how much Fuliza has actually cost you over the last three years?
Or would that number surprise you?