Introduction The most common reflectionary package that any government undertakes during a recessionary period as a countermeasure is to enhance its borrowing and spending. Several of these packages involve infrastructural investment, such as the building of bridges, roads, hospitals, railways, and schools (Vinter 2006). It has been a tradition for governments to borrow money, in a bid to enable them finances such projects, a practice that a majority of the countries have retained to this day. Nevertheless, the past two decades have witnessed a break by governments from this traditional form of infrastructural funding (Yescombe 2007), and a replacement of this by public private partnerships (PPPs). Basically, what this means is that a private company gets to finance a given project, followed by a certain period of operation in which such a company gets to recoup the money that it had invested. This could be in the form of a concession, in which the company charges the users of such a facility, or the company could be reimbursed its investment by the government (Kleimeier & Megginson 2001), like in the case of a Public Finance Initiative (PFI). There are several methods through which the PPP/PFI projects have traditionally been financed, including bank financing, equity, and senior debt, among others. Each one of these individual methods is characterised by various criteria of payback mechanism. While some of this fund gets released to a project at the inception period, there is that part of the find that is only released at the later part of a project. In addition, some of these sources of financing charges an interest, while others do not. With the credit crunch having impacted on the global financial markets, investors and banks alike are not as enthusiastic as before to lend money to private companies, as was the case previously (Norris 2009). The perception that one may gather here is that companies are running out of ways of borrowing money, so that they can support PPPs. How have the PPP/PFI projects been funded in the past? Traditionally, revenues from the government have been responsible for the financing of infrastructural projects (Vinter 2006). In this case, SOEs (state-owned enterprises) have been awarded the mandate of not just investing, but also facilitating in service delivery. Lately however, the trend has been that infrastructure tends to get funding based on the nature of the project, usually developed with the help of the private sector. This is how then that the Public-private partnerships have come about. The PPPs gives a choice for capital investment that would otherwise not be available, if we were to rely on the public funds alone (Yescombe 2007). In addition, PPPs results in an enhanced delivery of services through the application of entities of the private sector or for the provision of services and physicals infrastructure. Investing into infrastructure, relative to other assets tends to be a long-term venture, and therefore calls for patience (Klein 1997). As a result of the inflated capital costs that are a characteristic of infrastructure projects, a financing that may exceed more that say, 5 years becomes necessary for the attainment of financial feasibility (Yescombe 2007). PFI/PPP projects have previously