The inauguration ceremony for President Uhuru Kenyatta and deputy William Ruto cost Sh352.1 million, the presiding committee has said in an official report to Parliament.
The largest share of the budget went to security, protocol and logistics, which took up Sh146.3 million.
These are the costs for paying allowances to the security personnel present, transportation of VIPs and other costs.
The second-largest expenditure item was Foreign Affairs, which cost Sh98.9 million.
After the ceremony at Safaricom Stadium in Kasarani, Nairobi, the guests headed to State House for lunch that the committee says cost Sh46 million.
The committee reported that media and communications for the event cost Sh45.9 million and entertainment Sh15 million.
Interior Principal Secretary Karanja Kibicho said on the eve of the ceremony that the budget for the event was Sh384 million, which would also cover the Jamhuri Day fete two weeks later.
This suggests that the committee spent less than what had been provided for.
The report was submitted to Parliament as per the Assumption of Office of the President Act but it was not immediately clear which committee of the National Assembly would scrutinise it.
Much earlier, Mr Joseph Kinyua, President Kenyatta’s Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service, had said the inauguration would cost Sh300 million.
The report states that 180,000 people attended the ceremony, most of whom could not fit in the stadium.
They followed the event on screens mounted outside the stadium.
The committee asked MPs to change the law to enable the President retain full powers if the Supreme Court annuls a re-election, as happened last year.
It recommends that “temporary incumbency” be lifted in such circumstances until the day of the fresh election.
This would enable the President to appoint Cabinet and Principal secretaries, reshuffle the Cabinet, appoint commissioners, ambassadors and judges of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges would preside over disputes arising from the repeat election, raising concerns that the Constitution is being amended indirectly.
It would give a President whose re-election has been nullified the power to appoint Supreme Court judges yet the same court would preside over disputes about his election.