A once powerful Lebanese contractor at the heart of Kenya’s flagship pipeline project is now staring at financial ruin, with court filings painting a picture of a company that cannot pay its debts and is desperately manoeuvring through the justice system to buy time.
Zakhem International Construction Limited is locked in a bitter Sh460 million debt battle with Kenyan subcontractor Azicon Kenya Limited, a dispute that has dragged on for years and is now tipping into full blown insolvency proceedings. The High Court has in recent weeks delivered a fresh blow to the foreign firm, rejecting its attempt to suspend contempt of court proceedings even as a liquidation petition hangs over its head.
At the centre of the fight is unpaid work on the multibillion shilling Mombasa to Nairobi oil pipeline replacement project commissioned by the Kenya Pipeline Company.
Azicon says it was hired by Zakhem to carry out electrical, instrumentation and telecommunications works under a subcontract worth about Sh1.3 billion. While the Lebanese firm was allegedly paid in full by KPC, Azicon claims it only received about Sh840 million, leaving a balance of more than Sh460 million that has remained unpaid since 2020.
Court records show that Azicon obtained a decree compelling Zakhem to settle the debt, but years later the money has not been forthcoming. Instead, the Lebanese firm has mounted a string of legal objections, arguing that enforcement proceedings, contempt applications and insolvency suits amount to double jeopardy. Judges have been unconvinced, with the High Court noting that Zakhem had approached the wrong court and failed to follow basic procedural rules in its latest bid to halt the proceedings.
Behind the legal skirmishes lies a more damaging allegation. Azicon has accused Zakhem International of deliberately stripping itself of assets to frustrate creditors, including transferring dozens of vehicles and parcels of land to related companies with no known commercial activity. The Kenyan firm has asked the court to lift the corporate veil and hold individuals personally liable, arguing that the transactions were designed to render Zakhem judgment proof.
Zakhem denies wrongdoing and insists it is being unfairly hounded, at times claiming it was still awaiting payment from KPC. That position has been contradicted in court by affidavits showing that the state oil firm is not holding any funds on its behalf, a contradiction that has further weakened Zakhem’s credibility before the bench.
The insolvency petition now before the High Court could mark the beginning of the end for Zakhem’s operations in Kenya. If the court finds that the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, liquidation could follow, exposing directors to personal risk and sending a chilling message to foreign contractors operating in the country.
For local suppliers and subcontractors, the case has become a symbol of the power imbalance in mega infrastructure projects, where small Kenyan firms can be left gasping for years as well funded foreign contractors deploy legal firepower to delay payment. As one judge warned in open court, decrees are not decorative pieces of paper.
Zakhem’s fall from grace is stark. From handling strategic national infrastructure, the firm is now fighting to stay out of civil jail, accused of asset concealment and staring down the prospect of liquidation. For Azicon and other creditors, patience appears to have run out.
Ethiopia’s telecoms liberalisation hangs in the balance after the state-owned incumbent unleashed a blistering attack on Safaricom, accusing the Kenyan operator of flagrant market misconduct and threatening to reverse reforms that ended a century of monopoly control.
In an extraordinary escalation that could reshape the Horn of Africa’s telecoms landscape, Ethio Telecom has warned that continued violations by Safaricom Ethiopia risk forcing authorities to reconsider the competitive framework introduced just three years ago, potentially restoring single-operator dominance in a market of 120 million people.
The bombshell came as Firehiwot Tamiru, who has steered Ethio Telecom for seven years, delivered a scathing rebuke of Safaricom’s operational practices during a results briefing on Thursday, declaring that the competitor’s conduct falls below international standards and amounts to systematic abuse of market regulations.
The explosive row erupted after M-PESA Ethiopia publicly alleged that Ethio Telecom had blocked access to its newly launched Lehulm mobile money platform, preventing users on the state operator’s network from transacting. Safaricom channeled the complaint through its financial services subsidiary, triggering regulatory scrutiny and international attention.
Ethio Telecom has categorically rejected the accusations, insisting it acted only after repeated infractions threatened customer security and critical national infrastructure. The company has demanded a formal apology from Safaricom for making unsubstantiated claims before domestic and international audiences.
The dispute has now escalated into a formal corporate confrontation, with Ethio Telecom’s chief executive dispatching an official letter demanding retraction of the allegations. When Safaricom responded by redirecting the matter to M-PESA Ethiopia, tensions intensified further, with the state operator accusing its rival of attempting to exploit its customer base without proper infrastructure investment.
Tamiru told reporters that verbal warnings had previously been issued to Safaricom over its market behavior, but the infractions continued unchecked, forcing the state operator to take decisive protective measures. Her comments represent the most aggressive public stance Ethio Telecom has taken since the market opened to competition.
The chief executive issued a stark warning that appeared to question the viability of Ethiopia’s duopoly experiment. She insisted there exists no international precedent permitting one operator to commandeer a competitor’s customers without establishing requisite digital systems and infrastructure, suggesting Safaricom had attempted precisely such an overreach.
Her remarks strike at the heart of Ethiopia’s telecoms reform agenda, which saw Safaricom Ethiopia awarded a nationwide license in 2022 after a competitive bidding process that attracted global attention. The Kenyan consortium, which includes Vodafone and Vodacom, paid $850 million for market entry and committed billions more in infrastructure investment.
The liberalisation marked a watershed moment for Ethiopia, ending Ethio Telecom’s stranglehold over fixed line, mobile, internet and international gateway services. For decades, the monopoly structure allowed government to maintain strategic oversight while channeling revenues into public expenditure, but chronic underinvestment and service deficiencies ultimately prompted reform.
Safaricom Ethiopia positioned itself as a catalyst for digital transformation, leveraging M-PESA’s formidable reputation across East Africa to accelerate financial inclusion. The mobile money platform rapidly gained traction, but Thursday’s revelations suggest the expansion has triggered fierce resistance from the entrenched operator.
Tamiru emphasized that digital security remains paramount, declaring that safeguarding customers and critical infrastructure constituted a non-negotiable responsibility. She stressed that Digital Ethiopia must remain safe and secure, implying Safaricom’s approach had jeopardized those objectives.
Although Safaricom subsequently issued an apology, Ethio Telecom’s chief executive made clear the state operator would not share its subscriber base with the competitor. She left the door open for collaboration, but only on terms that respect market regulations and conform to international norms.
The confrontation raises fundamental questions about the sustainability of Ethiopia’s competitive telecoms environment. With Ethio Telecom now explicitly warning that the liberalisation framework could be reconsidered, investors and industry observers face the prospect of a dramatic policy reversal that would eliminate competition barely three years after its introduction.
The standoff also exposes deeper tensions over market conduct in a sector where the state retains overwhelming legacy advantages. Ethio Telecom controls the vast majority of subscribers, infrastructure and distribution channels, while Safaricom struggles to establish equivalent reach despite substantial capital commitments.
Industry analysts warn that any regression to monopoly would deal a devastating blow to Ethiopia’s economic reform credentials and could trigger contractual disputes with Safaricom’s consortium partners. The telecom license represents one of the largest foreign direct investments in Ethiopian history, and its value depends entirely on competitive market access.
For Safaricom, the dispute threatens to tarnish its regional expansion strategy and raises uncomfortable questions about due diligence before entering one of Africa’s most challenging operating environments. The company has staked significant resources and reputation on Ethiopian success, making retreat or failure particularly costly.
The allegations of market abuse, infrastructure deficiencies and regulatory overreach now sit before Ethiopian authorities, who must determine whether Ethio Telecom acted legitimately to protect national interests or wielded incumbent power to frustrate genuine competition. Their verdict will determine whether Ethiopia’s telecoms future remains competitive or reverts to centralized control.
The Kenya Revenue Authority has thrown down the gauntlet to millions of registered taxpayers who routinely declare zero income, blocking nil tax return filings until May in an aggressive move to convert non-compliant individuals and businesses into active revenue contributors.
The unprecedented suspension, announced Friday by Deputy Commissioner for Taxpayer Experience Patience Njau, exposes a glaring disparity in Kenya’s tax system: of 22 million registered Personal Identification Number holders, only eight million actively file returns, with a mere four million consistently paying taxes.
That leaves a country of 50 million people dependent on less than one percent of its population to shoulder the tax burden, a skewed reality KRA now intends to correct through what officials describe as the most comprehensive data validation exercise in the authority’s history.
“This year, our focus will be very different as we aim to convert nil and non-filers and zero payers into paying taxpayers,” Njau said during a press briefing that sent ripples through tax advisory circles. “We have systems in place to monitor other transactions, such as withholding tax, income earned, eTIMS, and customs, among others.”
The suspension runs until May 1, giving KRA nearly four months to cross-check declared nil returns against a growing arsenal of digital records.
The taxman will scrutinize eTIMS invoices, withholding tax submissions, employment income data, financial transmission records and customs declarations to identify taxpayers earning income but declaring none.
For taxpayers who attempted to file nil returns this week, the message was blunt. “Kindly note the Nil return option is temporarily unavailable. Kindly be patient as it is scheduled to be restored on May 1st,” KRA responded to queries on social media platform X.
The timing creates a squeeze: with the statutory filing deadline still June 30, taxpayers accustomed to filing early now face a compressed window and heightened scrutiny. KRA insists this is deliberate.
“Between now and the end of March, you cannot file nil returns for your 2025 income,” Njau explained. “Nil filing will be reopened once we have reviewed the data and confirmed that no transactions occurred during the year. This is meant to ensure that the tax burden is shared more fairly.”
The enforcement drive arrives against a backdrop of record revenue collection. In December alone, KRA netted 251.52 billion shillings, the highest monthly haul in its 30-year history, representing 15.88 percent year-on-year growth. For the full 2024/25 financial year, the authority collected 2.57 trillion shillings, growing revenue by 6.8 percent despite economic headwinds.
But KRA argues the impressive figures mask systemic inequity. Salaried workers captured through Pay As You Earn deductions account for the bulk of compliant taxpayers, while vast swathes of the informal economy, rental income earners and businesses operating below the radar continue to evade their obligations.
The authority has rolled out complementary measures to tighten the net. Starting this January, KRA began automated validation of all income and expenses declared in tax returns against internal data sources. Claims that cannot be verified electronically through eTIMS invoices, withholding tax records or customs data face disallowance.
A “Special Table” system now restricts persistent nil filers, businesses that have failed to file VAT returns for six months, traders without eTIMS compliance and operators engaged in schemes such as claiming fictitious input tax from submitting returns until they regularize their records.
The deadline for businesses to adopt eTIMS and resolve outstanding compliance issues is March 31. Entities that fail to comply risk deregistration or penalties. More than 100,000 businesses currently face deregistration for VAT non-compliance alone, according to KRA data.
The authority has attempted to soften the blow with taxpayer-friendly initiatives. Commissioner General Humphrey Wattanga announced a WhatsApp chatbot offering 15 services, including tax filing assistance, available 24/7 through the number +254 711 099 999. KRA has also introduced automated payment plans allowing taxpayers to clear outstanding liabilities, including penalties and interest, through structured instalments of up to six months.
“We are shifting toward data-driven enforcement aimed at distinguishing between inadvertent non-compliance and deliberate tax evasion,” Njau said.
The move reflects KRA’s growing technological sophistication. The Electronic Tax Invoice Management System, fully rolled out in 2023, now provides real-time visibility into business transactions. Integration with banks, telecommunications firms, insurance companies and utility providers gives the taxman unprecedented access to taxpayer financial footprints.
For genuine nil filers, those truly without taxable income, students, unemployed individuals or those below the 24,000 shilling monthly threshold, KRA maintains they remain legally permitted to submit nil returns once validation exercises conclude. But they may need to provide supporting documents such as bank statements or affidavits to prove their status.
Tax advisors warn clients to prepare for heightened scrutiny. “The days of filing nil returns as a default compliance measure are over,” said one Nairobi-based tax consultant who requested anonymity. “KRA now has the tools to see everything. If you earned income, they will find it.”
The suspension comes as KRA pursues an ambitious 2.968 trillion shilling collection target for the 2025/26 financial year, representing 15.4 percent growth. To hit that number, the authority needs every registered taxpayer paying their fair share.
Whether the hardline approach succeeds in widening the tax base or simply pushes more economic activity underground remains to be seen. What is clear is that the era of easy nil returns has ended, and millions of Kenyans now face a reckoning with the taxman.
Abdiweli Mohamed Hassan sits at the intersection of Kenya’s most explosive business and political controversies in 2026, his name ricocheting between corruption allegations, international fraud schemes and multibillion-shilling procurement scandals that have thrust the Somali-Kenyan entrepreneur into unwanted national prominence.
The owner of Eastleigh’s iconic Business Bay Square Mall, once celebrated as a symbol of entrepreneurial success and urban transformation, now finds himself battling to salvage a reputation battered by claims that link his commercial empire to stolen disability funds from Minnesota, rice import cartels threatening Kenyan farmers, and shadowy medical equipment deals worth Sh200 billion.
It is a spectacular fall from grace for a man who, just two years ago, was feted by President William Ruto at the grand opening of what was billed as East and Central Africa’s largest shopping complex. Today, Hassan is the face of what critics describe as the dangerous nexus between political patronage, ethnic entrepreneurship and alleged corporate malfeasance in Kenya’s Wild West business environment.
THE MINNESOTA BOMBSHELL
The first blow came with devastating force on January 4, when former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, speaking from the pulpit of AIPCA Kiratina Church in Githunguri, made sensational claims that sent shockwaves through Kenya’s business community and diplomatic circles.
“That money was meant to help people living with disabilities. It was stolen, brought to Kenya and invested in land, houses, and the construction of a mall,” Gachagua thundered before a packed congregation. “There is a mall in Eastleigh that was built using that money, and the owner is a business partner of the President.”
Rigathi Gachagua.
The allegations were explosive. Gachagua was directly linking Hassan’s multibillion-shilling commercial empire to an international fraud scandal that has rocked Minnesota, where federal authorities have charged 92 people, with 62 already convicted, in connection with schemes that bilked US taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars meant for disability services and child nutrition programs.
The most notorious case involved Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit that allegedly siphoned USD 250 million during the COVID-19 pandemic. FBI Director Kash Patel has called the Minnesota fraud “just the tip of a very large iceberg,” with losses potentially running into billions.
But Gachagua went further, urging US President Donald Trump to bypass Kenya’s legal system entirely and conduct a Venezuela-style military operation to seize suspects linked to the alleged fraud. “We are asking you Trump, don’t bother about the extradition process in Kenya, wewe fanya vile ulifanya Venezuela, because Ruto amesema jamaa asitolewe huku,” the former deputy president said in remarks that have triggered diplomatic concerns.
Hassan’s response was swift and uncompromising. On January 5, his lawyers at MMA Advocates filed a blistering 10-page petition with the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, accusing Gachagua of making reckless, inflammatory and ethnically charged statements that threaten to tear apart the social fabric of Eastleigh and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of innocent traders.
“These utterances have the effect of demonising an entire community and economic zone without factual or legal basis,” the petition states, arguing that Gachagua’s words amount to “collective punishment and ethnic stereotyping, which this country has suffered from in the past.”
The lawyers presented a detailed timeline that they say demolishes Gachagua’s allegations. According to court documents, the BBS Mall property was lawfully acquired in 2009 and initially housed Comesa Mall before being redeveloped between 2018 and 2022. The alleged Minnesota fraud, by contrast, occurred between 2022 and 2025, making it chronologically impossible for those funds to have financed a building already completed.
Eldas MP Adan Keynan rushed to Hassan’s defense, describing the mall’s proprietor as a respected businessman who has operated in Eastleigh for more than 25 years without ever being linked to criminal activity. “The property was later redeveloped into what is now the largest mall in East and Central Africa. Construction commenced in 2018 and was successfully completed in 2022,” Keynan said, demanding that Gachagua retract his claims and issue an unreserved public apology.
Yet the damage was done. Investors began getting cold feet. Tenants reconsidered expansion plans. Customers stayed away. The reputation of one of East Africa’s largest shopping complexes now hangs in the balance, all because of unsubstantiated allegations from a high-ranking political figure.
Hassan has not been formally charged in relation to the Minnesota allegations, and no court has made a determination on the claims. But in the court of public opinion, the verdict has already been rendered, at least in some quarters.
THE RICE IMPORT SCANDAL
If the Minnesota fraud allegations were not enough, Hassan found himself at the centre of another firestorm in August 2025, when Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah publicly accused him of leading a rice import cartel that threatens Kenyan farmers.
The accusations came after the government announced it would allow 500,000 tonnes of duty-free rice imports from India and Pakistan, a decision defended by Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe as essential to avert a food crisis, given Kenya’s annual deficit of about one million metric tonnes.
But Omtatah was having none of it. During a Senate session on July 31, 2025, the outspoken lawmaker claimed that the import deal favored BBS Mall’s ownership, questioning the legality and transparency of the rice import allocation.
“I would like to seek a statement from the committee on the matter that is now a public concern,” Omtatah said on July 9, 2025. “This development has raised concerns about the impact of this decision on local rice farmers.”
Okiya Omtatah
The senator noted an apparent bypassing of established regulatory institutions such as the Agriculture Food Authority, which under the Crops Act is mandated to oversee decisions related to food crop imports. He claimed that the mall was given permission by the government to import 500,000 metric tonnes of rice, an allegation that has bewildered rice farmers in Mwea, Kirinyaga County, who reported unsold stocks amid the influx of imported rice.
Hassan’s legal team, led by prominent lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, responded forcefully with a demand letter dated August 23, 2025, threatening legal action unless Omtatah retracted his Senate statements.
“For the record, we state expressly that our client was never allocated any quota to import rice,” the letter asserted, labeling Omtatah’s statements as baseless and misleading.
The standoff escalated into a broader political battle, with Omtatah declaring, “Parliamentary privilege is not for sale. I will not be gagged for demanding answers on the 500,000 tonnes of duty-free rice imports that threaten Kenyan farmers.”
Gachagua also waded into the rice controversy, linking Hassan to claims of rice importation deals. “I recently spoke about a mall in Eastleigh which was used to import rice at the expense of our farmers. I have seen people saying that I have attacked the mall. I never mentioned the mall,” Gachagua said in a quick rejoinder.
The rice scandal took on added urgency when the High Court in Mombasa threw a judicial spanner into a controversial rice importation deal, with Justice Jairus Ngaah issuing interim orders that exposed what appears to be a scandalous procurement process riddled with irregularities and potential fraud.
The ruling effectively froze the Agriculture and Food Authority’s attempt to reallocate a massive 250,000 metric tonnes rice import quota to four largely unknown private firms: Zyan Agencies, Ecoview Commodities, Njema Commodities, and Solid Commodities. These firms mysteriously emerged as beneficiaries despite not being among the original 60 companies initially considered for the contract.
Even more shocking, these firms edged out 16 legitimate bidders who had already been notified by the Kenya National Trading Corporation on September 9 that they were successful, only to be told the following day that the corporation had “chosen to go a different route.”
Corporate records raised immediate red flags. Solid Commodities, owned by Haroon Omar Bachoo, was incorporated as recently as October 2024, yet somehow secured a share of this multibillion-shilling deal. When journalists attempted to contact Zyan Agencies using officially registered information, they reached a woman who denied any knowledge of either the company or its listed owner, Ibrahim Murie Ibrahim.
With the government’s revised valuation of grade one white Pakistani rice at USD 460 per metric tonne, the total consignment is valued at approximately Sh14.8 billion. The import duty waiver makes this an even more attractive deal for the beneficiaries.
While Hassan’s legal team has categorically denied any involvement in rice importation, the controversy has placed the BBS Mall founder at the centre of a heated national debate about food security, farmer protection, and the influence of business cartels on government policy.
The accusations against Hassan came as local farmers in Mwea reported unsold stocks amid the influx of imported rice, fueling public suspicion that major business figures wield disproportionate influence over government commodity import decisions.
THE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT MYSTERY
As if the Minnesota fraud allegations and rice import scandal were not enough to tarnish Hassan’s reputation, his name has also been mentioned in connection with a Sh200 billion medical equipment supply deal reportedly awarded to Sunview Medipro International.
The contract, which has attracted scrutiny over its scale and procurement process, involves the National Equipment Service Program, a successor to the controversial Medical Equipment Service scheme that saw the Kenyan government spend Sh63 billion on dysfunctional medical equipment.
Sunview Medipro International, a little-known firm, was contracted to handle the medical equipment leasing deal under NESP by the Ministry of Health at a cost of Sh200 billion in collaboration with the Council of Governors, an arrangement that was controversially rejected by governors at its inception stage.
The pullout by governors came days after the National Treasury allocated more than Sh9 billion for the project in the 2023/24 budget, with shadowy contractors whose firms were kept away from public knowledge and scrutiny.
Under the current framework, Sunview Medipro International has been contracted to deploy an initial 98 Diagnostic Imaging CT Scan Machines, two Diagnostic Imaging Mammogram Machines, 400 Operating Theatres, and 400 Laboratories across the country under a Fee-for-Service model.
While appearing before the Senate Public Accounts Committee on December 3, 2024, Nyeri Governor Mutahi Kahiga, vice-chairperson of the Council of Governors, blew the lid off the new medical equipment leasing deal under NESP, terming it as shadowy.
He admitted that county governments were left with little choice but to sign the contracts, despite being kept in the dark about crucial details, including the identities of the suppliers.
“We had no option but to sign the deal. Counties do not have the funds to buy this equipment,” Kahiga told the committee. “We did not procure the machines, it’s the Ministry of Health that did the procurement. They even put out advertisements in the newspapers. We were not involved.”
Kahiga explained that counties were asked to select from 23 lots of equipment needed for local hospitals, but it was only after making these selections that they learned which companies would be providing the machines.
“But whoever selected them, that was a programme decided by the national government. We are just landlords,” he added.
Senators described the NESP as “opaque” and akin to the MES scandal. Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah demanded that Kahiga specify the legal clauses that allowed counties to sign the agreements. Isiolo Senator Fatuma Dullo accused the governors of not fully understanding the programme’s operations, suggesting that the deal could be worse than the MES scandal.
At least 37 counties have already signed agreements with the Ministry of Health to supply the medical gadgets, but the identities of the suppliers remain unclear. Hassan’s connection to this deal remains murky, with no formal confirmation of his involvement, yet his name continues to surface in public discourse around the controversial procurement.
When contacted for comment on the medical equipment deal, Hassan had not responded by the time of publication.
THE TATU CITY GAMBLE
Even as controversy swirled around him, Hassan moved forward with what may be the largest private real estate deal in Kenya’s history. On October 10, 2025, he signed a Sh65 billion agreement with Tatu City Special Economic Zone to develop a 60-acre mixed-use community spanning residential homes, retail spaces, offices, logistics facilities, and religious infrastructure.
The timing of this announcement carried particular significance. Hassan himself had been accused by Omtatah of being at the helm of a rice import cartel, though Hassan’s legal team had vehemently denied any involvement in rice importation deals.
“BBS Mall changed how people viewed Eastleigh, showing that thoughtful development can reshape neighborhoods and improve how people live and work,” Hassan explained during the signing ceremony. “Now, the future of development is moving beyond the city center, where there’s space to build holistic communities with everything people need: schools, offices, entertainment, shops, and recreation. Tatu City offers exactly that, a well-planned environment free from congestion and the hassles of commuting.”
Stephen Jennings, founder and CEO of Rendeavour, the developer behind Tatu City, framed Hassan’s investment as validation of Kenya’s appeal to serious transformative investors despite the country’s well-documented governance challenges.
“People today value a higher standard of living in well-governed, holistic communities,” Jennings noted. “It takes visionaries like Abdiweli Hassan to execute large-scale projects that improve the lives of tens of thousands of people. We are delighted that Hassan selected Tatu City for this record-setting investment in Kenya’s future.”
The Sh65 billion Tatu City investment represents patient capital committed to genuine value creation, with Hassan’s development timeline spanning a decade. This long-term orientation stands in stark contrast to the scramble for quick gains characterizing the rice import scandal, where politically connected firms materialized overnight to claim contracts worth billions.
Yet the irony is inescapable. Hassan’s Sh65 billion Tatu City investment announcement comes as he navigates accusations of benefiting from the very type of opaque government dealings that have plagued Kenya’s procurement system.
Stephen Jennings, Founder & CEO of Rendeavour, and Abdiweli Hassan, Founder & Chairman of Business Bay Square, shake hands after signing a KES 65 billion deal to develop homes, retail, offices, warehousing, and a mosque at Tatu City Special Economic Zone.
THE EASTLEIGH SUCCESS STORY
Hassan’s journey from transforming Eastleigh through the 130,000-square-meter Business Bay Square Mall to this record-setting investment at Tatu City represents what supporters call a masterclass in strategic development thinking.
Where others saw congestion and limited infrastructure, Hassan identified opportunity. His BBS Mall, housing over 1,000 shops and restaurants, did not just create commercial space but reimagined an entire neighborhood’s economic potential and fundamentally altered public perception of what Eastleigh could become.
The mall has become a symbol of the entrepreneurial success of Kenya’s Somali community, a testament to the economic transformation of a district once dismissed as chaotic and disorganized. It employs thousands of Kenyans and contributes hundreds of millions in tax revenue annually.
But this success has also made Hassan a lightning rod for criticism and suspicion. In a country where rapid wealth accumulation often triggers questions about its source, Hassan’s meteoric rise from trader to billionaire developer has invited scrutiny from politicians, senators and civil society activists.
Following Gachagua’s remarks, leaders from Northern Kenya rallied to Hassan’s defense, terming the accusations politically motivated and unfairly targeted. They argued that Eastleigh’s business success has often been mischaracterized and that allegations against Somali-Kenyan entrepreneurs are frequently amplified without due process.
“It is dangerous for a leader of Mr Gachagua’s stature to repeatedly suggest that businesses in Eastleigh are inherently criminal,” Hassan’s lawyers wrote in their NCIC petition. “Such statements amount to collective punishment and ethnic stereotyping, which this country has suffered from in the past.”
Trade Cabinet Secretary Lee Kinyanjui has hit back at Gachagua, accusing him of recklessness and warning that dragging foreign governments into Kenya’s internal disputes could have catastrophic consequences. “How can a leader seek to throw his own country into the deep end merely to score personal revenge?” Kinyanjui demanded.
THE DUAL REALITY
Hassan’s case captures Kenya’s development paradox. On one hand, he represents the promise of entrepreneurial capitalism, a self-made businessman who has transformed urban landscapes and created thousands of jobs. On the other hand, he stands accused, however contested those accusations may be, of benefiting from the very cartel dynamics that corrupt public procurement.
Can the same individual embody both Kenya’s developmental promise and its procurement pathologies? Or does the truth lie somewhere more nuanced, in the complex intersection of legitimate business ambition, political accusations, and a governance system so compromised that even legitimate entrepreneurs find themselves suspected of cartel involvement?
The BBS Mall petition lays out stark demands. It calls on the NCIC to investigate whether Gachagua’s remarks constitute hate speech or ethnic contempt under Kenyan law, issue formal censure if violations are found, and recommend prosecution where appropriate. The lawyers also want media houses cautioned against amplifying such inflammatory statements.
“The effect of these remarks is real, not hypothetical,” the petition warns. “They threaten the reputation and operations of lawful businesses, destabilize commercial relations, and can inflame ethnic animosity.”
As of press time, the NCIC had not publicly responded to the explosive complaint, leaving the nation to wonder whether Kenya’s foremost cohesion watchdog will act when confronted with one of its most significant tests in recent memory.
THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
What remains clear is that Abdiweli Mohamed Hassan has become the face of controversial Somali-Kenyan business success, whether he deserves that label or not. His name has become entangled in Kenya’s broader conversation about cartels, procurement integrity, and the influence of wealthy business interests on government policy.
Whether these allegations hold merit remains contested. Hassan’s lawyers insist he had no involvement in rice importation and that the Minnesota fraud timeline makes it impossible for those funds to have financed BBS Mall. Omtatah and Gachagua, however, maintain their accusations, protected by parliamentary privilege and political ambition.
What is undeniable is that Hassan’s trajectory from Eastleigh trader to billionaire developer has made him a symbol of both aspiration and suspicion in a country where success often invites scrutiny and ethnic entrepreneurship triggers political backlash.
As construction begins at Tatu City within the year, Hassan’s gamble will face its ultimate test not in tender documents or Senate debates but in concrete and steel, in schools filled with students and offices humming with commerce, in neighborhoods where families build lives rather than merely survive.
Whether Hassan’s name emerges from these controversies vindicated or tarnished will help define not just one developer’s legacy but Kenya’s capacity to distinguish between genuine value creation and extractive corruption, between building the nation’s future and merely exploiting its present dysfunction.
For now, Abdiweli Mohamed Hassan remains at the center of Kenya’s most explosive business and political storms, his reputation hanging in the balance as investigators, senators and courts pick through the allegations that threaten to define his legacy.
Kenya Insights sought comment from Hassan on all the allegations, but he had not responded by the time of going to press.
Nairobi — A Turkish aviation giant that lost access to nine Indian airports following a diplomatic crisis has quietly secured a foothold at one of East Africa’s most strategic air cargo hubs, raising questions about the vetting of foreign operators at critical infrastructure sites across the continent.
Celebi Aviation, through its German subsidiary Celebi Cargo GmbH, has acquired Transglobal Cargo Centre for 40.1 million dollars, gaining control of ground-handling operations at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi.
The deal, approved by Kenyan authorities last week, marks the Istanbul-based company’s first direct entry into African aviation services just eight months after Indian officials terminated its concession agreements citing national security concerns.
The timing and circumstances of the acquisition have drawn scrutiny from industry observers familiar with the events that led to Celebi’s abrupt exit from India.
In May 2025, Indian authorities revoked the company’s operating licenses at major airports including Mumbai and Delhi, formally citing security clearance issues following a brief military confrontation between India and Pakistan.
The cancellations came after Turkey expressed formal support for Pakistan, triggering what Indian officials described as necessary security reviews of Turkish commercial interests.
Appeals by Celebi’s Indian subsidiaries were rejected by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, an agency under India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation.
The company’s subsequent expansion into Kenya, barely six months later, has prompted questions about whether adequate due diligence was conducted by Kenyan regulators.
Peter Muthoka, the Kenyan billionaire who sold Transglobal to Celebi, told local media he was exiting the business to pursue other investments.
Peter Muthoka.
The 5.17 billion shillings transaction represents one of the largest deals in Kenya’s logistics market, with part of the proceeds earmarked for debt repayment related to facility upgrades at the airport.
Kenya’s Competition Authority approved the acquisition unconditionally, stating the transaction was “unlikely to negatively impact competition in the market for cargo handling in Kenya, nor elicit negative public interest concerns.”
The regulator projected that the deal would result in increased investment in facilities, equipment, and human resources.
However, the approval notice made no mention of the security concerns that led to Celebi’s expulsion from India, nor did it reference any enhanced vetting procedures for foreign operators acquiring assets at the country’s busiest airport.
JKIA handles approximately 20 percent of Kenya’s annual air cargo volume of 400,000 tonnes, making it a critical node in regional trade networks.
Through its new subsidiary, operating as Africa Flight Services, Celebi now controls 33 percent of the export cargo handling market at JKIA and 20 percent of the import market, according to data from the Kenya Airports Authority.
The company’s closest competitor, Kenya Airways Cargo, holds 22 percent of exports and 32 percent of imports.
Dave Dorner, chief executive of Celebi Aviation, described Kenya as “a key gateway for trade and cargo flows across East and Central Africa” in a statement announcing the acquisition.
He said the company aims to combine local expertise with global operational standards to support Kenya’s ambitions as a regional trade and logistics hub.
The aviation sector has long been considered sensitive from a security perspective, with cargo handling operations at international airports subject to heightened scrutiny in many jurisdictions.
Ground-handling companies have access to aircraft, cargo manifests, and restricted areas of airports, making their operations potential vulnerabilities if compromised.
Industry sources contacted for this report expressed surprise that a company facing security-related cancellations in one major market could secure regulatory approval in another without apparent additional scrutiny.
One aviation security consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the situation as “a glaring example of regulatory arbitrage” in which companies barred from operations in jurisdictions with stringent security protocols seek entry into markets with less rigorous oversight.
Kenyan authorities have not responded to requests for comment on whether the Indian security concerns were considered during the approval process.
The Ministry of Transport and the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority declined to provide statements on the vetting procedures applied to the Celebi transaction.
Celebi Aviation, founded in 1958, operates across Europe, India, and the Middle East, offering passenger services, ramp operations, and air cargo management at more than 40 airports worldwide.
The publicly traded company, listed on Borsa Istanbul, has positioned the Kenya acquisition as part of its international growth strategy.
The company’s statement on the transaction projected that Kenya’s aviation market would grow at an average rate of 5 percent annually over the next five years, significantly outpacing the global average.
It said Transglobal’s annual revenue is expected to reach approximately 15.9 million euros by the end of that period, supported by total investments of around 6.5 million euros.
For Muthoka, the sale marks his second major exit transaction.
In 2014, he received 1.8 billion shillings for his stake in motor vehicle dealer CMC Holdings when it was acquired by Dubai’s Al Futtaim. He maintains a presence in the logistics business through Acceler Global Logistics, which offers freight services and operates from JKIA’s cargo facilities.
The broader question raised by the transaction concerns the coordination, or lack thereof, between regulatory authorities in different jurisdictions when evaluating foreign investors in sensitive sectors.
While commercial considerations often drive approvals of foreign investment, security agencies in countries including the United States, Britain, and members of the European Union have increasingly applied heightened scrutiny to acquisitions of critical infrastructure assets.
Whether Kenya’s approval of the Celebi acquisition reflects a different risk assessment than that undertaken by Indian authorities, or simply a less stringent vetting process, remains unclear.
What is certain is that a company deemed unsuitable to operate at Indian airports on security grounds now controls a significant portion of cargo operations at East Africa’s most important aviation hub.
A casual WhatsApp chat can bind a business deal. So, can an SMS. That is the clear warning from the High Court, which has ruled that digital text messages can create enforceable contracts when core legal elements are proven.
The decision was delivered by the High Court in Siaya in a small claims appeal between Fredrick Ochiel and Kennedy Okoth, two business acquaintances whose informal deal over an ultrasound machine spiralled into litigation.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld a lower court award of Sh145,000, finding that messages exchanged on phones captured a valid agreement.
At the heart of the dispute was a simple arrangement. Mr Okoth said he orally agreed in September 2024 to lease his ultrasound machine to Mr Ochiel at Sh1,000 per day for 145 days.
Mr Ochiel collected the machine in Nairobi, used it, paid only Sh5,000, and failed to return it. He denied any agreed fee and argued there was no written contract.
The trial court sided with Mr Okoth. On appeal, the High Court was asked to answer a broader question with growing relevance in Kenya’s digital economy: Can WhatsApp chats and SMS amount to a binding business contract?
Justice David Kemei answered in the affirmative, provided the law’s essentials are met. “It is trite law that oral agreements made in good faith are legally binding as long as the claimant can substantiate them,” the judge said, citing Section 107 of the Evidence Act on the burden of proof.
The court stressed that contracts need not be written to be enforceable. What matters is whether there was an offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity.
Those elements, the court said, can be inferred from conduct and communications. “Contracts can be inferred from the conduct of the parties and need not be in writing,” the judgment stated, adding that a party relying on an oral agreement may prove it through “emails, texts, written communication, and conduct.”
In this case, the digital trail proved decisive. The court examined short text messages and WhatsApp correspondence presented by Mr Okoth. They showed discussions on daily charges, promises to pay by a certain date, explanations for delayed payment, and requests to settle at least 60 percent of the outstanding amount.
“It is noted that the parties did not sign any written agreement, but there are several short text messages (SMS) and WhatsApp correspondences that were presented by the respondent as evidence of an oral agreement,” the court stated.
Mr Ochiel acknowledged collecting the machine and admitted paying Sh5,000, a fact “captured in the communications.”
From that evidence, the court found “an obvious meeting of minds.” It concluded that “the terms of the oral agreement are captured in the correspondences via SMS and WhatsApp messages [and] bound the parties.”
The court also noted that since Mr Ochiel did not raise objections to the production of the communication evidence, the parties were deemed to have accepted the documents as part of the evidence.
Mr Ochiel had challenged the admissibility of the messages, arguing they lacked a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act.
The court rejected that defence. He also withdrew his preliminary objection, failed to object when the messages were produced, and effectively accepted them as evidence.
“The appellant is therefore deemed to have agreed with the contents of those communications,” the court held, finding the statutory requirements satisfied.
The ruling carries a broader lesson for businesses and individuals who transact informally. Courts, the judge said, will not rewrite bargains simply because one party later regrets the terms.
Citing past authorities, the judgment reiterated that parties are bound by their agreements unless illegality, fraud, coercion, or undue influence is proven. Complaints that the charges exceeded the price of a new machine did not sway the court.
Jurisdiction arguments also failed. Although the machine was collected in Dagoretti, Kiambu, the court found Siaya proper because the respondent resided and worked there, satisfying the Civil Procedure Act.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with costs, with the court finding that Mr. Ochiel acted in bad faith by using the machine without paying and failing to return it, forcing Mr. Okoth to sue.
Beyond the Sh145,000 award, the message is unmistakable. In Kenya’s courts, a handshake deal backed by WhatsApp or SMS can carry the full force of law. Every text message counts.
NAIROBI, Kenya, Jan 21 – Kenyans can now buy shares in the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) following the Government’s decision to sell part of its stake through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) at the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE).
The State plans to offload 65 percent of its shareholding in KPC to raise funds for investments in water, roads, airports, energy and other infrastructure projects under the National Infrastructure Fund. Of this stake, 60 percent has been reserved for Kenyan investors, with the remainder allocated to regional and other investors.
Under the offer, the Government is selling 11.81 billion shares at Sh9 per share, targeting to raise about Sh106.3 billion.
How to apply
Kenyans interested in buying KPC shares can apply through two channels:
USSD (Mobile Phone)
Dial *483*816#
Follow the prompts to complete your application
This option is designed for individual investors who prefer using mobile phones.
Investors must have a Central Depository System (CDS) account
This method is open to all investor categories and offers more flexibility and control.
“The KPC IPO provides two convenient application methods designed to accommodate different investor preferences and levels of technological access,” KPC said, noting that while individuals can use USSD, the online platform is available to all investors.
The IPO was officially launched on Monday by Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi at the NSE.
Mbadi said the KPC listing is part of broader economic reforms aimed at deepening Kenya’s capital markets, improving governance in state-owned enterprises, and expanding public ownership of strategic national assets.
Once listed, KPC will become one of the largest companies on the NSE, offering Kenyans a rare opportunity to directly invest in a key national infrastructure firm.
National Bank of Kenya (NBK) has sold the Nairobi Upper Hill Hotel in a move to recover a debt of Sh447 million owed by businessman Geoffrey Wahome Muotia, bringing to an end a decade-long legal and financial dispute.
The four-storey hotel, located in Nairobi’s prime Upper Hill area, was placed under receivership in August 2025 after Muotia defaulted on a loan initially advanced in 2014.
The facility, originally valued at Sh281 million, ballooned to Sh447 million due to accumulated interest, penalties, and other charges.
Muotia mounted several legal challenges in an attempt to stop the sale, arguing that the property had been grossly undervalued.
However, both the Environment and Land Court and the High Court dismissed his objections, clearing the way for NBK to proceed with the auction and recovery process.
A key turning point came in August 2025 with the appointment of Kamal Anantroy Bhatt of Anant Bhatt LLP as Receiver and Manager.
The court granted Bhatt full control over the hotel’s operations, assets, and business, cautioning that any dealings with the property without his consent would be unlawful.
The sale underscores growing pressure within Kenya’s hospitality sector, which has been hit by rising non-performing loans, high operating costs, and stiff competition from short-term rental platforms.
It also signals a tougher stance by lenders, who are increasingly resorting to receivership and asset sales to enforce loan recovery amid a tightening credit environment.
While details of the buyer and final sale price were not immediately disclosed, the transaction is expected to have implications for the hotel’s employees, suppliers, and customers.
Analysts say the outcome serves as a cautionary tale on the risks of prolonged loan defaults and highlights the importance of prudent financial management in Kenya’s volatile hospitality industry.
Kenya Railways Corporation has issued a seven-day demolition notice targeting Neno Evangelism Centre, the sprawling church empire of controversial televangelist Pastor James Ng’ang’a, in a dramatic escalation of a land dispute that has simmered for years.
The state agency’s move to reclaim prime property along Haile Selassie Avenue has set the stage for a showdown with one of Kenya’s most polarizing preachers, whose fiery sermons and run-ins with the law have made him a household name.
The demolition notice, signed by Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga, warns that any structures remaining after the deadline will be brought down at the owners’ cost.
Pastor Ng’ang’a’s church sits on land that Kenya Railways insists forms part of a railway reserve earmarked for the ambitious Sh28 billion Railway City project.
The development, backed by Sh11.9 billion from the United Kingdom government, aims to transform Nairobi’s central railway station into a modern multimodal transport hub capable of moving 30,000 passengers per peak hour.
But the preacher is not going down without a fight.
In 2023, Ng’ang’a obtained a court injunction blocking Kenya Railways from interfering with his property, which he claims to own lawfully.
Court documents reveal the pastor had drawn up plans to develop a commercial complex with at least 20 shops, parking facilities and other amenities on the contested plot.
In a scathing court application, Ng’ang’a accused the state agency of attempting to unlawfully dispossess him after he notified them of his development plans.
The Environment and Land Court granted him temporary protection, with Judge Edward Wabwoto issuing orders restraining Kenya Railways from disturbing the pastor’s quiet enjoyment of the land pending the case’s determination.
The demolition threat extends beyond Ng’ang’a’s empire.
Also in the firing line is Jesus Is Alive Ministries, led by former Starehe MP Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, another politically connected televangelist who has accused the government of betrayal.
Her church compound was partially demolished in 2024 when unknown individuals tore down a perimeter wall, claiming to act on Kenya Railways’ instructions.
Wanjiru, visibly emotional at the time, lamented that the government she had campaigned for was now targeting her ministry.
Two years earlier, the Environment and Land Court had dismissed her petition challenging Kenya Railways’ construction of a wall separating church land from railway property, ruling that she had failed to prove encroachment.
The Railway City project spans 13 acres and promises to revolutionize public transport in the capital.
Plans include laying 45 kilometers of new railway track, constructing a new central station building, building overbridges across platforms, and establishing a freight marshalling yard at Makadara.
The development will feature office blocks, shopping malls and a light industrial hub, with completion initially targeted for 2027.
Two petrol stations and an abandoned construction site are also marked for demolition as Kenya Railways accelerates site clearance for the project.
The corporation says final designs have been completed and procurement processes are underway, signaling that demolitions could begin imminently.
For Pastor Ng’ang’a, whose ministry has weathered numerous controversies including a 2015 road accident that left one person dead, the demolition notice represents yet another legal battle.
Known for his combative style and lavish lifestyle, the preacher has built a religious empire that includes a television station and large congregation.
The standoff mirrors similar disputes across Nairobi where the government has embarked on aggressive land reclamation drives.
Recent evictions in Mariguini displaced over 5,000 families to pave way for affordable housing projects, while Kiambu Governor Kimani Wamatangi has cried political persecution after demolitions of Nyayo properties.
As the seven-day ultimatum ticks down, all eyes are on whether Ng’ang’a’s 2023 court injunction will hold or whether bulldozers will roll into Haile Selassie Avenue.
Kenya Railways has made clear it intends to take full possession of the land, setting the stage for what could be one of the most dramatic demolitions in recent memory.
The corporation insists the Railway City project is critical for easing congestion in Nairobi’s central business district and improving connectivity across the metropolitan area.
But for Ng’ang’a and Wanjiru, the price of progress could be the loss of their religious strongholds in the heart of the capital.
The glittering facade of Africa’s fastest-growing betting operation is showing cracks that reveal a web of questionable partnerships, astronomical fees, and regulatory failures stretching from Senegal to Rwanda. At the center stands Nigerian music superstar Oluwatosin Ajibade, known globally as Mr Eazi, whose transformation from Afropop sensation to gambling magnate now appears built on foundations far less solid than his chart-topping hits.
betPawa, the British-Estonian online betting platform that has captured 4.8 million users across 16 African markets, promised a revolution in accessible gambling for the continent’s youth. Behind the sleek mobile interface and celebrity endorsements, however, lies a troubling pattern of collapsed partnerships, tax evasion allegations, and a business model that critics say extracts wealth from local operators at rates that would make loan sharks blush.
The company’s parent entity, pawaTech, founded in 2013 by Danish entrepreneur Kresten Buch, reported profits of $111.1 million in 2024 while positioning itself alongside industry giants like Cyprus-based 1xBet and French operators Premier Bet and Betclic. Yet as pawaTech pursued an aggressive capital raise for 2025, its expansion strategy has imploded across multiple markets, leaving a trail of unpaid wages, suspicious payments, and abandoned franchises.
The relationship between Buch and Mr Eazi, which began in 2014 when the artist was still building his musical career, has evolved into a partnership that blurs the lines between legitimate business and exploitation. By 2020, the two had formalized their collaboration, with Mr Eazi acquiring local betPawa operations in Uganda, Ghana, Tanzania, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Benin. The financial arrangements underpinning these acquisitions, according to sources close to the operations, included private jet travel, debt repayments, and cash transfers totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing from Buch’s companies to the singer’s accounts.
The Senegal debacle offers the clearest window into pawaTech’s problematic operational model. Just months after a fanfare launch in 2024, CEO Juri Sidorenko sent a terse letter to local partner Mobile Technology on August 21, terminating their contract. The collapse followed Senegalese authorities’ refusal to permit the use of pawaPay, a payment aggregator partly owned by both Buch and Mr Eazi that would have allowed the partners to control the entire betting value chain from wager to payout.
Buch confirmed his minority stake in pawaPay, describing it as a spinout from pawaTech and an important customer of the parent company. This vertical integration strategy, while potentially lucrative, raised immediate red flags among African regulators wary of monopolistic control over gambling revenues.
But the Senegal exit revealed something more disturbing than regulatory pushback. In his termination letter, Sidorenko demanded Mobile Technology repay one million euros in operating loans extended between May 2024 and April 2025. pawaTech was not merely a lender but also the franchise’s betting system provider, charging fees set at a staggering 68 percent of monthly net profit. Industry standards hover around 30 percent, making pawaTech’s extraction rate more than double what franchisees typically pay.
By September 18, Mobile Technology director Alioune Badara Faye faced summons from Senegalese labor inspectors over unpaid wages and wrongful terminations, the predictable endpoint of a business model that siphoned profits while leaving local operators unable to meet basic obligations.
The Ivory Coast venture proved even more explosive. Buch partnered with Daci Speed, owned by Ange-Eléonore Djekould Bougoussou, whose husband Diomande Georges Gueuty serves as director general of the Ivorian economic and financial police. The marriage of betting interests and law enforcement oversight created obvious conflicts, but the relationship deteriorated into outright accusations of criminality.
On January 12, pawaTech issued a statement accusing Bougoussou of extorting $3.6 million. By September, the company had filed formal complaints in Abidjan and Kigali alleging breach of trust, fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy against Bougoussou and pawaTech’s former chief commercial officer Ntoudi Mouyelo. According to pawaTech, Daci Speed demanded the funds to secure a gaming license from the Loterie Nationale de Côte d’Ivoire, whose actual fee converts to just $900,000.
The accusations paint a picture of either spectacular corruption or spectacular incompetence. pawaTech claims LONACI never received payment, yet a license was somehow granted to Daci Speed in betPawa’s name. Despite holding the coveted license, Buch abandoned the Ivorian market when authorities refused to approve pawaPay and declined to guarantee tax incentives. The entire episode left observers wondering whether the $3.6 million vanished into private pockets or funded unofficial channels to secure regulatory approval.
In Cameroon, the Danish entrepreneur found partners with deep connections to power. As early as 2022, Buch joined forces with Ennovative Gaming, operated by businessman Thomas Nsongka and the influential Marinus Atanga. The latter’s brother, Paul Atanga Nji, serves as Territorial Administration Minister and reportedly maintains close ties to Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh, secretary general to the presidency. Nsongka’s responsibilities extended beyond Cameroon to managing franchises in Sierra Leone, Congo, and Gabon.
Despite generating annual revenues reaching several hundred million CFA francs, Ennovative Gaming operated between 2022 and 2024 under a tax regime designed for small businesses with turnover below 50 million CFA francs. This preferential treatment, available to enterprises earning a fraction of betPawa’s actual revenues, continued until early 2024 when authorities finally conducted a tax reassessment, slapping the company with a 72 million CFA franc bill and forcing a regime change.
Buch defended the arrangement by stating pawaTech only licenses its brand to operators holding local licenses, which in turn requires tax clearance. Yet this explanation rings hollow when the very tax regime under which the franchisee operated was manifestly inappropriate for a business generating the revenues Ennovative Gaming reported.
In Benin, betPawa demonstrated more sophisticated regulatory navigation. The local franchise, represented by Choplife Gaming and owned by Mr Eazi, negotiated an exemption from Benin’s new 50 percent tax on online betting in exchange for a single payment of 3.8 million euros. Mr Eazi’s proximity to Lionel Talon, son of President Patrice Talon, likely smoothed the path for this preferential arrangement, which effectively cut the company’s tax burden in half while competitors faced the full levy.
The apprentice businessman, as sources describe Mr Eazi, now controls betPawa operations in Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and Benin. But the weight of this empire is beginning to crush those beneath it. In Rwanda, authorities raised the online betting levy from 13 percent to 40 percent in February 2025, forcing Mr Eazi to pay $11.8 million in back taxes. Rwandan tax collectors continue pursuing several million dollars more in unpaid obligations.
The financial flows reveal the true nature of these franchises. Mr Eazi transfers more than 70 percent of his monthly profits to pawaTech in service fees, a figure that makes the Senegalese rate of 68 percent appear systematic rather than exceptional. Local operators function less as independent businesses than as revenue collection vehicles for the British-Estonian parent company, with Mr Eazi serving as the acceptable African face for what amounts to profit extraction on an industrial scale.
The relationship between the singer and his inconspicuous friend Buch has drawn scrutiny from unexpected quarters. Mr Eazi’s financial manager, growing uncomfortable with transactions flowing through pawaTech, raised concerns about the chartered accountant handling the Uganda operations. Doubting the compliance of financial arrangements, the manager withdrew his services and filed a complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the professional body governing accounting standards.
The specific nature of these compliance concerns remains unclear, but the decision to flag the matter to regulatory authorities suggests more than routine disagreements over accounting practices. When a financial professional risks his relationship with a high-profile client by reporting suspected irregularities, the underlying issues typically involve serious questions about legality or ethics.
In Uganda, Mr Eazi’s entry into the market followed a 2021 tax dispute involving betPawa’s partner Intelworld Company. Seizing the opportunity created by regulatory pressure on the existing operator, the singer acquired the company with assistance from the chief financial officer of K&K Advocates, a powerful law firm with extensive government connections. The pattern repeated itself across markets: regulatory difficulties created openings, Mr Eazi stepped in with Buch’s financial backing, and well-connected local partners smoothed the path.
Only in Nigeria, Mr Eazi’s home country, did this model encounter sustained resistance. The specific nature of that resistance remains unclear, but it suggests limits to even the most popular celebrity’s ability to leverage fame into regulatory favor when operating on home turf where scrutiny runs deeper.
The all-expenses-covered private jet trips, debt repayments, and cash transfers flowing to Mr Eazi paint a picture of a celebrity whose transition from entertainment to gambling was greased by financial inducements that raise questions about the true ownership structure behind his franchise holdings. Were these payments compensation for services, return on investment, or something less straightforward?
Now facing mounting pressure, Buch is reportedly considering relocation to Rwanda, hoping to avoid potential prosecution in European jurisdictions where accounting irregularities and tax arrangements might face harsher scrutiny. Once again, he appears to be counting on Mr Eazi’s popularity and connections to facilitate the move, banking on the singer’s star power to provide political cover for business practices that might not withstand examination in less celebrity-obsessed environments.
The broader questions raised by betPawa’s troubled expansion extend beyond individual actors. Africa’s online betting boom has created fortunes for operators while raising concerns about gambling addiction, youth exploitation, and the social costs of making wagering accessible through mobile phones that millions carry constantly. When the companies driving this boom operate through opaque franchise arrangements that evade appropriate taxation, employ service fee structures that strangle local partners, and cultivate relationships with politically connected individuals to secure preferential treatment, the industry’s legitimacy faces fundamental challenges.
pawaTech’s planned 2025 capital raise now appears increasingly difficult as potential investors confront collapsed markets, pending legal complaints, tax disputes, and professional accounting concerns. The company’s strategy of rapid expansion through local franchises and celebrity partnerships has produced impressive user numbers but questionable profits when calculated honestly rather than through accounting that keeps hundreds of millions in service fees offshore.
For Mr Eazi, the reckoning presents a stark choice between his carefully cultivated image as a Pan-African success story and the reality of a business model that extracts wealth from the continent while providing minimal lasting value to local economies. His music celebrated African youth, hustle, and ambition. His betting empire, by contrast, appears designed to monetize those same qualities while concentrating profits in European bank accounts.
The inconspicuous partner Kresten Buch, operating far from spotlight that illuminates his famous collaborator, has built a structure that privatizes profits while socializing risks. When franchises collapse under the weight of unsustainable fee structures, local operators face labor disputes and tax penalties while pawaTech maintains its distance. When regulators crack down on preferential tax arrangements, local entities pay reassessments while the parent company collects its service fees regardless.
As African regulators grow more sophisticated about the gambling industry’s practices, the model that powered betPawa’s expansion faces increasing resistance. The refusal to approve pawaPay in multiple markets signals awareness that allowing betting operators to control payment infrastructure creates conflicts of interest that undermine consumer protection. The tax reassessments and increased levies reflect governments’ determination to capture a fairer share of gambling revenues that too often flow offshore through service agreements and licensing fees.
The betPawa story illustrates how celebrity, connections, and capital can combine to build impressive empires on questionable foundations. But it also demonstrates that even in Africa’s sometimes lightly regulated markets, there are limits to how long such arrangements can persist before regulatory scrutiny, professional accountability, and basic business sustainability impose consequences.
For the 4.8 million users placing bets through betPawa platforms across Africa, the behind-the-scenes financial engineering remains invisible. They see a mobile app, marketing featuring their favorite celebrities, and the possibility of quick returns on small wagers. What they don’t see are the service fees extracting 70 percent of profits, the tax arrangements that deprive their governments of revenue for social services, and the partnership structures that concentrate wealth among a small group of well-connected individuals.
As 2025 unfolds, the question is whether Africa’s betting boom will mature into a properly regulated industry that contributes fairly to national coffers while protecting vulnerable consumers, or whether it will remain a vehicle for profit extraction dressed up in the language of innovation and accessibility. The troubles engulfing betPawa suggest that the current model faces a reckoning that no amount of celebrity endorsement or political connection can indefinitely postpone.
The king of Afropop built his musical empire through talent, hard work, and an ability to bridge African and global sounds. His gambling empire, by contrast, appears built on less sustainable foundations. Whether Mr Eazi can transform one into the other, or whether the weight of his inconspicuous partner’s collapsing expansion will pull both down, remains the central question as regulators across the continent begin demanding answers that sound bites and celebrity cannot provide.
Kenya Revenue Authority Commissioner General Humphrey Watanga now faces potential court sanctions after being accused of brazenly defying court orders by allowing the illegal clearance of rice imports worth a staggering Sh5.5 billion.
Watanga, alongside Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi and KRA Commissioner for Customs and Border Control Lilian Nyawanda, stands accused of facilitating the entry of 55,000 tonnes of duty-free rice despite explicit court directives temporarily barring such imports .
The explosive revelations emerged in fresh court filings that detail how two massive shipments of white rice were cleared at the Port of Mombasa late last year, in what petitioners are now calling a calculated act of contempt of court.
Court documents reveal that the vessel Spica Eternity docked in Mombasa in October 2025 carrying approximately 35,000 metric tonnes of white milled rice from Kandla Port in India, exported by Olam Agri India Private Limited and consigned to Ecoview Commodities Ltd and Njema Commodities Ltd.
The second vessel, IVS Crimson Creek, arrived in mid-December 2025 with an additional 20,000 metric tonnes of white rice from Thailand, exported by Olam Thailand Limited and Golden Granary Co. Ltd, consigned to Preferred Grains Ltd.
The 55 million kilogrammes of imported rice, valued at approximately Sh5.5 billion at retail prices of Sh100 per kilogramme, have now become the centre of a legal and political firestorm threatening to consume some of the country’s top government officials.
The scandal deepens with allegations that government officials issued a new gazette notice in December extending the import window to May this year to circumvent court orders frozen by Justice Edward Muriithi, which required that any fresh imports must be cleared by the court .
Kirinyaga Senator Kamau Murango and Baragwi Ward Representative David Mathenge, who are leading the legal battle, have submitted damning cargo manifests to the court as evidence of what they describe as a systematic scheme to flout judicial authority.
The petitioners argue that the imports threaten to flood the market at a time when local farmers in Nyanza, Central, and Western Kenya are sitting on massive unsold stocks of rice, potentially causing financial ruin for thousands of smallholder farmers.
Senator Murango insists that warehouses and stores in rice-producing regions already hold large quantities of unsold rice, contradicting government claims of a food crisis .
The government, however, maintains that Kenya faces an acute rice shortage. Officials project that national rice stocks will run out by the end of this month if imports are halted, with the country requiring about 750,000 metric tonnes of rice between January and June 2026 while reserves stood at approximately 110,000 metric tonnes at the start of the year.
Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi
Government lawyers warn that restricting imports would drive up prices and disproportionately harm low-income households, as domestic production supplies less than 20 per cent of annual demand estimated at up to 1.5 million metric tonnes .
Justice Muriithi has since issued interim orders suspending implementation of the contested gazette notice and directing KRA to detain the disputed consignments pending further directions.
A ruling expected on January 29, 2026 will determine whether Watanga, Mbadi and Nyawanda will be formally cited for contempt of court.
The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time for Watanga, whose tenure as KRA boss has been marked by multiple confrontations with Parliament and allegations of poor performance.
The taxman has repeatedly faced scrutiny over revenue collection shortfalls that have forced the government to increase domestic and foreign borrowing.
This is not the first time Watanga has found himself in hot water.
In 2024, he was summoned by the Finance and National Planning Committee over claims the country lost Sh62 billion in a tax evasion scandal involving Louis Dreyfus Company.
He also infamously skipped parliamentary invitations 14 consecutive times over queries on ethnic composition of KRA staff.
For CS Mbadi, a former ODM stalwart now serving in President William Ruto’s government, the rice scandal threatens to undermine his credibility just months into his tenure.
The ODM-allied Cabinet Secretary has already faced parliamentary sanctions threats for failing to honour MPs’ invitations on other matters of national importance.
The petitioners have made it clear they will not back down.
In their court application, they warn that the continued release of duty-free rice constitutes fresh acts of contempt that undermine conservatory orders meant to protect farmers pending the case’s final determination.
As Kenya holds its breath for the January 29 ruling, the bigger question remains: will senior government officials be held accountable for allegedly defying court orders in a scandal that has pitted farmers against bureaucrats, and the judiciary against the executive?
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) has closed investigations into a sophisticated cyber fraud that saw a Nairobi-based travel agency lose more than Sh22 million through unauthorized airline ticket bookings, after a court was informed that all inquiries had been concluded.
The case, which revolved around allegations of hacking and computer fraud, was terminated after investigators told a Nairobi court that they had exhausted all available investigative avenues.
The magistrate subsequently allowed the DCI to close the file.
According to court records, the probe stemmed from a complaint lodged on July 22, 2025, by Tuli Executive and Travel Ltd Kenya, a global travel agency operating in Nairobi.
The firm’s director reported that the company had suffered a major breach of its computer systems, disrupting operations and exposing it to significant financial liability.
Investigating officer Joseph Karanja told the court that detectives were pursuing offences including unauthorized access, contrary to Section 14(1) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, as well as computer fraud and related cyber offences.
Investigators established that unknown persons gained unlawful access to the firm’s Global Distribution System (GDS) account, identified as NBO41236H, which is used to book airline tickets for clients.
Using the compromised credentials, the attackers booked multiple flights for different passengers, generating tickets valued at Sh22,415,575. The cost of the tickets was subsequently charged to Tuli Executive’s account.
The company uses the Amadeus Global Travel Distribution System to process airline bookings, with payments settled through the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Bill Settlement Plan (BSP).
Following the breach, IATA’s Travel Agency Commissioner’s Office demanded that Tuli Executive settle the outstanding amount for the tickets that had been fraudulently issued through its system.
As part of the investigation, the firm supplied detectives with detailed reports of the disputed tickets.
DCI cybercrime experts focused on tracing the digital footprint left during the attack, relying on internet protocol (IP) addresses, which uniquely identify devices connected to a network.
Through court orders, investigators compelled IATA and Emirates Farelogix to release system logs showing which computers interacted with the BSP platform and accessed the complainant’s payment account during the period of the breach.
Analysis of the logs revealed IP addresses linked to suspected fraudulent devices hosted within Kenya.
The DCI noted that the information sought was maintained electronically and therefore constituted electronic evidence under Section 103B(4) of the Evidence Act.
This provision requires certification of digital evidence to ensure its admissibility in court.
On the strength of these findings, the court issued orders compelling internet service providers to disclose subscriber information linked to the identified IP addresses.
Among those served was Vijiji Connect Ltd, which received the order on October 21, 2025. The order was acknowledged by the firm’s manager, John Kimotho, who undertook to forward it to the company’s chief executive officer for compliance.
Wananchi Group Kenya was also served with similar court orders.
Despite tracing the cyber trail and obtaining cooperation from airlines, IATA, and local internet service providers, investigators ultimately closed the case, with no charges disclosed in court against specific suspects.
Nairobi, January 19, 2026 — Kenya has formally opened one of its most strategic state assets to public ownership after the National Treasury on Monday launched the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) Initial Public Offering at the Nairobi Securities Exchange, marking the largest IPO in the country’s history and the first to be conducted electronically.
Under the offer, the Government is selling 65 percent of KPC’s 11.8 billion issued ordinary shares at Sh9 per share, a move that will significantly dilute state ownership in the petroleum transporter and usher the company into the public markets for the first time.
The offer period runs from January 19 to February 19, with trading of KPC shares expected to begin on March 9, subject to regulatory clearances. The broader privatisation process is slated to conclude by the end of March.
Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi said the listing was a cornerstone of the government’s state-owned enterprise reform agenda, aimed at broadening citizen ownership while deepening capital markets.
“This IPO is about transforming a wholly state-owned enterprise into a people-owned company,” Mbadi said during the launch ceremony in Nairobi, adding that the transaction would strengthen both KPC and the Nairobi Securities Exchange.
The IPO includes an Employee Share Ownership Plan, with five percent of the offer shares reserved for eligible KPC staff, allowing workers to acquire a direct stake in the company’s future performance.
Privatisation Authority chairman Faisal Abass described the transaction as a test case for transparent and technology-driven privatisation, noting that the electronic structure was designed to widen access and improve governance.
KPC becomes the first company to list through an e-IPO at the NSE, coming at a time when the bourse has recorded renewed momentum, with market capitalisation surpassing Sh3 trillion late last year.
Proceeds from the sale will go directly to the Exchequer and form part of the government’s financing plan for the 2025/26 financial year. Treasury said the funds will support priority sectors including energy, roads, water and irrigation, airports, and broader fiscal consolidation efforts.
The offer is open to Kenyan retail and institutional investors, East African Community investors, oil marketing companies, KPC employees, and international investors, in line with capital markets regulations.
Founded in 1973, KPC operates more than 1,300 kilometres of petroleum pipelines and is central to Kenya’s fuel supply chain and regional energy trade. The company is among the country’s most profitable state corporations, reporting revenues of Sh38.6 billion and net profits of Sh10.37 billion for the year ended June 2025.
Upon completion of the IPO, KPC will transition from a state corporation to a publicly listed firm on the NSE’s Main Investment Market Segment, fundamentally reshaping ownership of a key national infrastructure asset.
The Kenyan government stands accused of mortgaging the nation’s financial future for immediate cash as Auditor General Nancy Gathungu delivers a scathing assessment of the controversial Safaricom dividend deal that could see taxpayers lose out on trillions of shillings over the coming decades.
In explosive submissions to Parliament, Gathungu has warned that the Treasury’s plan to accept a one-off payment of Sh40.2 billion from telecoms giant Vodacom instead of receiving future dividends represents a dangerous conversion of Kenya’s most reliable revenue stream into what she terms an arbitrary lump sum that significantly undervalues long-term returns.
The warning comes as the government pushes ahead with plans to offload a 15 percent stake in Safaricom to Vodacom at Sh34 per share, generating Sh204 billion in gross proceeds. However, the devil lies in the details of what happens to the remaining 20 percent government stake.
Under the proposed structure, Vodacom would make an upfront payment of Sh40.2 billion to compensate the government for future dividends from its residual shareholding. But Gathungu argues this arrangement warrants intense scrutiny given Safaricom’s profit-generating prowess.
The telecommunications behemoth has historically delivered annual dividends of between Sh15 billion and Sh20 billion to the government when it held a 35 percent stake. Even with the reduced 20 percent holding, proportionate dividend flows would still represent substantial recurring income for decades to come.
“This arrangement effectively forfeits long-term returns that would otherwise accrue to the government’s remaining stake,” Gathungu told the joint parliamentary committees on Finance and National Planning, and on Debt and Privatisation. “The Sh40.2 billion payment represents only a few years of potential dividend income.”
The mathematics paint a troubling picture for Kenya’s fiscal future. If Safaricom continues generating dividends at historical rates, the government’s 20 percent stake could reasonably be expected to yield between Sh8 billion and Sh12 billion annually. Over a 20-year period, that translates to between Sh160 billion and Sh240 billion, potentially reaching Sh600 billion over 50 years without accounting for inflation or growth in Safaricom’s profitability.
Gathungu has demanded that Treasury disclose exactly how it arrived at the Sh40.2 billion figure and how many years of dividends were factored into the calculation. If no definite period was used, she insists the valuation should be based on perpetual cash flows, reflecting the reality that dividends from a profitable entity like Safaricom are expected to continue indefinitely.
“Use of the perpetual cash flow approach ensures the government captures the true economic value of an ongoing dividend stream rather than accepting an arbitrary lump sum,” the Auditor General stated in her written submissions.
The concerns extend beyond the dividend arrangement. Gathungu has also questioned whether the Sh34 per share price, despite representing a 17 percent premium over the six-month volume-weighted average, truly reflects optimal value for such a strategic national asset, particularly given the absence of competitive bidding.
She has called for additional valuation benchmarks including Discounted Cash Flow analysis, Comparable Company Analysis, and simulations of what the shares might fetch through a public tender or Initial Public Offering.
The government currently owns 35 percent of Safaricom, with the total stake valued at between Sh280 billion and Sh300 billion based on current market prices. The proposed sale would reduce this to 20 percent while Vodacom, which already holds the majority stake, would further consolidate its control.
In another red flag, Gathungu has warned that the Sh204 billion proceeds must be ring-fenced to prevent diversion to recurrent expenditure, citing previous instances where funds from Eurobond proceeds were misallocated. She noted that while the government claims the money will fund critical infrastructure including energy projects, roads, water systems, airports and digital transformation, the sessional paper makes no mention of the proposed Sovereign Wealth Fund or National Infrastructure Fund.
“Without a clear legal and governance framework, there is a risk of misallocation or opaque utilisation of the proceeds, which could compromise fiscal discipline and accountability,” Gathungu cautioned, insisting that enabling legislation must be enacted before any funds are credited to such vehicles.
The Kenya Bankers Association has added its voice to growing concerns, recommending that five percent of the shares under divestiture be reserved for public purchase to broaden ownership of the national asset and deepen capital market participation.
Parliament now faces mounting pressure to scrutinize a deal that critics have already labeled a monumental mistake in terms of national sovereignty. With regulators including the Communications Authority, Central Bank, Nairobi Securities Exchange and Competition Authority expected to maintain heightened vigilance over Safaricom’s operations post-sale, the question remains whether Kenya is selling off its most valuable asset at fire-sale prices while simultaneously trading future prosperity for immediate cash to plug budget holes.
The joint parliamentary committees are currently seeking public views on the transaction, but with the government eager to conclude the deal and access the proceeds, time may be running out for Kenya to reconsider what could prove to be one of the most consequential financial decisions in the nation’s history.
Nearly one in every four Safaricom customers believes the telecommunications giant is shortchanging them on data and text message charges, a damning regulatory survey has revealed, exposing a crisis of trust at Kenya’s dominant mobile operator just as mobile data becomes its biggest money spinner.
The explosive findings from the Communications Authority of Kenya paint a troubling picture of widespread consumer suspicion, with only 77 percent of Safaricom’s massive customer base trusting their data bills and 77.7 percent believing they are accurately charged for SMS services. This means a staggering 23 percent of subscribers, millions of Kenyans, harbour deep doubts about whether they are getting what they pay for.
The timing could not be worse for Safaricom. The company just recorded a historic milestone in its half-year results to September 2025, with mobile data revenue surging 18 percent to Sh44.4 billion, overtaking voice revenue for the first time in the telco’s history. Voice, once the backbone of telecommunications, managed only a paltry 0.5 percent growth to Sh41.09 billion, highlighting how critical data has become to the company’s bottom line.
But as Safaricom celebrates this financial triumph, the regulatory survey commissioned by the Communications Authority and conducted by Strategic Synergy Consultants between July 2024 and June 2025 exposes an uncomfortable truth: customers do not trust how they are being billed for the very services now driving the company’s profits.
“Safaricom shows lower performance compared to other providers. While still a majority, these lower figures indicate that Safaricom customers are less confident in billing accuracy, particularly for data services,” the report states with clinical precision.
The contrast with competitors is stark and humiliating. Jamii Telecommunications, a relative minnow in the market, enjoys the highest trust ratings, with 98.4 percent of customers confident in their data billing and 88.6 percent trusting SMS charges. Airtel Kenya follows closely with 98.3 percent and 86.2 percent respectively. Even Telkom Kenya, long struggling for market relevance, outperforms Safaricom on billing credibility.
The mistrust extends beyond data and texts. Only 80.2 percent of Safaricom customers believe they are correctly charged for voice calls, the lowest rating among all operators. By comparison, a remarkable 97.6 percent of Airtel customers trust their call billing, followed by Jamii at 96.7 percent and Telkom at 94 percent.
The survey, which covered more than 4,200 respondents, lays bare a fundamental problem: transparency. A paltry 18 percent of Safaricom customers say they receive monthly billing information, compared with 44.1 percent of Airtel subscribers and 35 percent of Jamii customers. Without regular, detailed billing statements, customers are left guessing whether the charges deducted from their accounts match the services consumed.
This opacity becomes especially problematic in an era when data consumption is exploding. Increased online learning, remote working and entertainment streaming have made data services indispensable, transforming mobile internet from a luxury into a necessity. Kenyans are using more data than ever before, making billing accuracy not just a consumer rights issue but a question of economic justice.
The survey notes that billing disputes consistently rank among the most common complaints lodged by subscribers with the Communications Authority, according to quarterly regulatory reports. This suggests the problem is not merely perception but reflects real, ongoing frustrations with how charges are calculated and applied.
Safaricom’s dominance in the market makes the trust deficit even more significant. The company controls approximately 65 percent of Kenya’s mobile subscriptions as of September last year, dwarfing Airtel’s 30.7 percent market share. Telkom and Jamii each hold about one percent. With such overwhelming market power, Safaricom effectively holds millions of Kenyans captive, unable to easily switch to competitors even when dissatisfied.
The billing trust crisis comes on the heels of other controversies that have dented Safaricom’s reputation. In late 2025, the company faced fierce public backlash after quietly slashing data allocations on its popular ‘No Expiry’ bundles by more than half, effectively doubling internet costs overnight. Customers who had been getting 255 megabytes of non-expiring data for Sh51 suddenly found themselves receiving only 102 megabytes for the same price.
Safaricom initially blamed the cuts on a technical issue, an explanation many customers found unconvincing given the changes persisted for over a week before the company restored original allocations under intense pressure. The incident reinforced suspicions that the telco was testing how much it could squeeze from customers before provoking rebellion.
Industry analysts note that billing transparency is fundamental to maintaining consumer trust in any service sector, but especially in telecommunications where complex tariff structures, data throttling and variable network quality create information asymmetries that favor providers over customers. When the dominant player in the market performs worst on transparency metrics, it raises questions about whether market power has bred complacency.
The Communications Authority report pointedly observes that improved billing transparency and clarity are key to sustaining consumer trust across all providers. For Safaricom, this is not merely a regulatory box-ticking exercise but an existential challenge as the company transitions from voice to data as its primary revenue engine.
The company’s response to these findings will be closely watched. Will Safaricom dismiss the survey results as statistical noise, or will it acknowledge that nearly a quarter of its customers, millions of Kenyans, feel they cannot trust the bills they receive? The answer will determine whether this trust deficit deepens into a full-blown crisis of confidence that competitors could exploit.
Rivals have already been circling, banking on lower call tariffs and aggressive data promotions to chip away at Safaricom’s dominance. Airtel has repeatedly positioned itself as the more customer-friendly alternative, offering better value data bundles and, according to this survey, significantly higher billing credibility. The trust gap revealed by the regulatory study hands ammunition to these competitors.
For ordinary Kenyans, the survey findings validate what many have long suspected: that the charges appearing on their mobile accounts do not always add up, that data bundles seem to deplete faster than usage would suggest, and that the dominant telco’s billing practices merit serious scrutiny.
As mobile data cements its position as Safaricom’s biggest revenue line, the company faces a moment of reckoning. Trust, once lost, is notoriously difficult to rebuild. With nearly a quarter of customers already doubting billing accuracy, Safaricom must act decisively to restore confidence or risk watching its hard-won market dominance slowly erode under the weight of consumer suspicion.
The Communications Authority has thrown down the gauntlet. The question now is whether Safaricom has the will to pick it up.
In what prosecutors are describing as one of the most audacious cases of employee theft in recent times, a businessman has been charged with stealing a staggering Sh296 million from a city shopping mall over a period spanning seven years.
Mohamed Osman Abdile, who worked at Mega Shopping Mall in Eastleigh, appeared before court Monday to face a litany of charges that paint a damning picture of systematic looting and elaborate money laundering schemes designed to conceal the source of the stolen funds.
The 30 criminal counts against Abdile read like a thriller: conspiracy to commit a felony, stealing by servant, money laundering, and being in possession of proceeds of crime.
Each charge represents another thread in what investigators allege was a carefully woven web of financial deception.
According to court documents, the theft occurred between January 2018 and February 2025, with Abdile allegedly using his company Fatzam Enterprises Limited to transfer money to various companies and individuals in a bid to hide where it came from.
The prosecution painted a picture of a man who allegedly exploited his position of trust. The money belonged to business mogul Abdi Mohamed Ali and came into Abdile’s possession by virtue of his employment at the mall, the court heard.
Sophisticated Money Laundering Operation
But the theft allegations are only part of the story. Prosecutors allege that Abdile went to extraordinary lengths to legitimize his ill-gotten gains.
The Director of Public Prosecutions charged him with money laundering for concealing the source of over Sh116 million held in accounts at Kenya Commercial Bank, Absa Bank and Equity Bank. Additionally, he was indicted for possessing more than Sh107 million believed by police to be proceeds of crime.
In one incident detailed in court, police on March 12, 2024 discovered Sh4.7 million in an account at KCB Eastleigh Branch registered under Fatzam Enterprises Limited, the company Abdile operated with fellow director Hussein Ibrahim Barre.
Ghost Director and Pending Arrests
Barre, who is jointly charged in the case, did not appear in court for plea taking, raising questions about his whereabouts. The accused faces 17 counts of money laundering and 10 counts of being in possession of proceeds of crime, according to court records.
Investigators say the scheme involved multiple accomplices, some of whom remain at large. Police are yet to arrest other conspirators for arraignment, the court was told.
Bond Granted Despite Magnitude
Despite the gravity of the charges and the massive sums involved, the prosecution surprisingly did not oppose Abdile’s application for release on bond.
He was freed on Sh3 million bond with an alternative cash bail of Sh2 million after entering a not guilty plea to all 30 charges.
The Eastleigh Context
The case comes at a sensitive time for Eastleigh’s business community, which has been working to shake off negative associations and position itself as a legitimate economic powerhouse in Nairobi.
Eastleigh, often dubbed “Little Mogadishu,” is home to several major shopping complexes including the newly opened Business Bay Square Mall, a Sh25 billion development that has transformed the area’s commercial landscape. The neighborhood is a major contributor to Nairobi’s revenue through its bustling wholesale and retail trade.
This theft case, however, serves as a stark reminder that even in Kenya’s most vibrant commercial districts, internal fraud can flourish when oversight mechanisms fail. The seven-year duration of the alleged theft raises uncomfortable questions about financial controls and audit procedures at Mega Shopping Mall.
As the case proceeds through the courts, attention will focus on how an employee could allegedly steal such colossal amounts over such an extended period without detection. The trial is expected to reveal details about the mall’s internal controls, the methods allegedly used to siphon funds, and the network that may have facilitated the laundering of the stolen money.
For now, Abdile remains free on bond as he prepares to fight 30 criminal charges that could see him spend decades behind bars if convicted. The case also shines a spotlight on the need for robust financial oversight in Kenya’s retail sector, where trust and internal controls are often the only barriers between businesses and catastrophic losses.
The matter will be mentioned in court for further directions on the trial date.
The gloves are off in what has rapidly escalated into one of Kenya’s most explosive political and business controversies this year, as the owner of Nairobi’s iconic Business Bay Square Mall has launched a blistering legal assault against former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua over remarks linking the multibillion-shilling commercial empire to an international money laundering scandal.
In a hard-hitting petition filed with the National Cohesion and Integration Commission on January 5, lawyers representing the BBS Mall proprietors have accused Gachagua of making reckless, inflammatory and ethnically charged statements that threaten to tear apart the social fabric of Kenya’s most vibrant commercial hub and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of innocent traders.
The political firestorm erupted after Gachagua, speaking during a Sunday church service at AIPCA Kiratina in Githunguri on January 4, made sensational claims connecting Eastleigh’s sprawling shopping center to proceeds from a massive fraud scheme in Minnesota, United States, where funds meant for people living with disabilities were allegedly siphoned into Kenya.
“That money was meant to help people living with disabilities. It was stolen, brought to Kenya and invested in land, houses, and the construction of a mall,” Gachagua thundered from the pulpit, before dropping a political bombshell. “There is a mall in Eastleigh that was built using that money, and the owner is a business partner of the President.”
But Gachagua did not stop there. In remarks that have sent shockwaves through Kenya’s business community and diplomatic circles, the Democracy for Citizens Party leader urged US President Donald Trump to bypass Kenya’s legal system entirely and conduct a Venezuela-style military operation to seize suspects linked to the alleged fraud.
“We are asking you Trump, don’t bother about the extradition process in Kenya, wewe fanya vile ulifanya Venezuela, because Ruto amesema jamaa asitolewe huku,” Gachagua said in Swahili, referencing the dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces just days earlier.
The response from BBS Mall’s legal team, led by MMA Advocates, has been swift and uncompromising. In their meticulously crafted 10-page petition, the lawyers argue that Gachagua’s statements go far beyond legitimate political critique and cross into dangerous territory that could ignite ethnic tensions, destroy businesses and undermine national cohesion.
“These utterances have the effect of demonising an entire community and economic zone without factual or legal basis,” the petition states, adding that the former deputy president’s words amount to “collective punishment and ethnic stereotyping, which this country has suffered from in the past.”
The lawyers have painted a damning picture of the potential fallout from Gachagua’s remarks. Investors are getting cold feet. Tenants are reconsidering expansion plans. Customers are staying away. The reputation of one of East Africa’s largest shopping complexes hangs in the balance, they argue, all because of unsubstantiated allegations from a high-ranking political figure.
Rigathi Gachagua.
“Our tenants are registered taxpayers, compliant with Kenyan law, and contribute significantly to the national economy,” the petition notes. “Yet they are now being unfairly targeted in political rhetoric that threatens their safety, dignity and livelihoods.”
The timing could not be more explosive. Gachagua’s remarks came just as US federal authorities intensified their crackdown on alleged fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs, with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security conducting sweeping investigations that have ensnared dozens of suspects, most of Somali descent.
The Minnesota scandal itself is staggering in its scope. Federal prosecutors have charged 92 people, with 62 already convicted, in connection with what FBI Director Kash Patel has called “just the tip of a very large iceberg.” The schemes have targeted everything from pandemic-era child nutrition programs to disability housing services, with losses potentially running into the billions.
The most notorious case involved Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit that allegedly bilked taxpayers out of USD 250 million by submitting fake meal counts and invoices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, the Trump administration has frozen child care funding to Minnesota and four other states, demanding comprehensive audits and threatening to cut off billions in federal support.
Against this backdrop, Gachagua’s decision to link Kenya’s commercial sector to the Minnesota mess has triggered a political earthquake. Eldas Member of Parliament Adan Keynan rushed to the defense of the BBS Mall, accusing Gachagua of making “false and malicious claims” that are “chronologically impossible.”
Keynan revealed explosive details about the mall’s legitimate history, noting that the property was lawfully acquired in 2009 and initially housed Comesa Mall before being redeveloped between 2018 and 2022 into what is now described as the largest shopping complex in East and Central Africa.
“The property was later redeveloped into what is now the largest mall in East and Central Africa. Construction commenced in 2018 and was successfully completed in 2022,” Keynan said, adding pointedly that the alleged Minnesota fraud occurred between 2022 and 2025, making it impossible for those funds to have financed a building already completed.
The lawmaker described the mall’s proprietor as a respected businessman who has operated in Eastleigh for more than 25 years without ever being linked to criminal activity, demanding that Gachagua retract his claims and issue an unreserved public apology.
But Gachagua has shown no signs of backing down. In the same church address, he unleashed a blistering attack on President William Ruto, accusing him of shielding alleged drug barons in his Cabinet and protecting individuals linked to the Minnesota fraud.
“Nimeona jana ukisema mambo ya wale wanauza cocaine na heroin, ati utadeal nao, kwanza futa wale mawaziri uko nao wawili wanajulikana kwa kuuza madawa,” Gachagua said, daring the President to begin his anti-narcotics crackdown within his own government.
Trade Cabinet Secretary Lee Kinyanjui has hit back hard, accusing Gachagua of recklessness and warning that dragging foreign governments into Kenya’s internal disputes could have catastrophic consequences. “How can a leader seek to throw his own country into the deep end merely to score personal revenge?” Kinyanjui demanded.
The BBS Mall petition lays out stark demands. It calls on the NCIC to investigate whether Gachagua’s remarks constitute hate speech or ethnic contempt under Kenyan law, issue formal censure if violations are found, and recommend prosecution where appropriate. The lawyers also want media houses cautioned against amplifying such inflammatory statements.
“The effect of these remarks is real, not hypothetical,” the petition warns. “They threaten the reputation and operations of lawful businesses, destabilize commercial relations, and can inflame ethnic animosity.”
For the thriving business community in Eastleigh, a commercial powerhouse that employs thousands and contributes hundreds of millions in tax revenue annually, the stakes could not be higher. The petition argues that branding an entire district as a criminal enclave risks fueling harassment, resentment and hostility against law-abiding residents.
“It is dangerous for a leader of Mr Gachagua’s stature to repeatedly suggest that businesses in Eastleigh are inherently criminal,” the document states. “Such statements amount to collective punishment and ethnic stereotyping, which this country has suffered from in the past.”
As the NCIC weighs its response, Kenya finds itself at a crossroads. Will it allow inflammatory political rhetoric to destroy legitimate businesses and communities? Or will it draw a line in the sand and enforce laws designed to protect national cohesion?
The petition concludes with a powerful appeal that resonates beyond the immediate controversy. “Kenya’s diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Leaders must choose words that unite rather than divide.”
As of press time, the NCIC had not publicly responded to the explosive complaint, leaving the nation to wonder whether Kenya’s foremost cohesion watchdog will bark or bite when confronted with one of its most significant tests in recent memory.
What is clear is that this battle is far from over. With political tensions running high, business reputations on the line and international fraud investigations casting long shadows, the Gachagua-BBS Mall saga threatens to dominate headlines for weeks to come.
The question now is whether Kenya’s institutions are strong enough to referee this explosive clash between political ambition and commercial legitimacy, or whether the country will once again allow ethnic profiling and inflammatory rhetoric to poison its social and economic fabric.
A storm is brewing at SIC Investment Co-operative as its chief executive officer Churchill Winstones has abandoned ship, leaving behind thousands of anxious depositors struggling to recover their hard-earned savings from the troubled society.
Winstones’ dramatic exit late last week comes as the once-popular Sacco, which counts current and former Safaricom employees among its 5,300 members, battles a crippling cash crunch that has left investors who sunk millions into its Pepea Fixed Deposit product stranded.
The departure marks yet another shake-up at the beleaguered institution, which in June witnessed the entire board being shown the door and replaced with interim directors who were only confirmed three months later. Winstones becomes the second CEO to flee the cooperative in less than four years, following Sarah Wahogo who served from March 2022 until early last year.
Multiple investors who each deposited at least Sh4 million into the Pepea Fixed Deposit account have told this writer that SIC has been playing a dangerous game of delay tactics, repeatedly postponing payments and citing liquidity problems as their investments reach maturity.
The scale of the crisis is laid bare in the cooperative’s annual report for 2024, which reveals a shocking Sh380 million bank run on the Pepea product as panicked customers rushed to pull out their money earlier than expected. The unexpected mass withdrawal has created a domino effect, leaving those who dutifully held their investments to maturity unable to access their funds.
Acting CEO Jared Odhiambo, who previously served as head of finance, has admitted the society is drowning in liquidity challenges but insists they have a plan to settle all investors by March next year. He claims the cooperative is gradually paying off depositors and is now restructuring the product to tie it to specific projects.
However, such assurances ring hollow for investors who were promised their principal and accrued interest within 10 days of maturity. Some have already written to the Commissioner for Co-operatives Development David Obonyo, desperate letters seen by this publication that paint a picture of growing desperation.
The Pepea Fixed Deposit, which SIC marketed as an exclusive product offering lucrative returns of up to 12 percent annually, attracted depositors with promises of competitive rates second to none in the market. Investors who locked in amounts exceeding Sh3 million for 12 months were promised returns of 12 percent, significantly higher than what most banks offer.
The minimum investment of Sh50,000 could be locked in for six to 12 months, with returns ranging from 10 percent to 12 percent depending on the amount deposited and tenure selected. The product came with a harsh penalty clause, investors who withdrew before maturity forfeited all accrued interest, a trap that has now left many feeling cornered.
Adding to the mess, SIC was forced to restate its books for the year ended December 2023 to correct several misstatements, slashing retained earnings by Sh26.15 million. The accounting irregularities raise troubling questions about the financial management and oversight at the cooperative.
Interest payments on the Pepea product climbed to Sh48.95 million in 2024 from Sh40.35 million the previous year, indicating the product’s growing popularity just before the crisis hit. What triggered the sudden rush by many customers to withdraw their funds early remains unclear, but the consequences have been devastating for those who played by the rules.
The Commissioner for Co-operatives claims he was unaware of the liquidity crisis despite letters from distressed investors landing on his desk. Obonyo has now promised to intervene, but for many depositors watching their savings disappear into a black hole, such promises offer little comfort.
SIC Investment Co-operative, which started operations in 2009, built its reputation partly on its association with telecommunications giant Safaricom, attracting employees and former staff who trusted the society with their retirement savings and investment funds. The principal activities include real estate investment, marketable securities and private equity.
As March 2025 approaches, the critical question remains whether SIC can deliver on its promise to settle all investors or whether this will become another cautionary tale of Kenyans losing their life savings to a cooperative that promised the moon but delivered only heartache.
For now, investors can only watch and wait, hoping their money has not vanished into thin air while the man who was supposed to steer the ship to safety has quietly slipped away into the night.
Nairobi, Kenya – December 22, 2025 – Spiro, the electric motorcycle company that has rapidly expanded across Africa, is facing a storm of controversy in Kenya.
Marketed as a green mobility solution, Spiro’s operations have drawn praise for reducing emissions but sharp criticism for alleged exploitative practices.
At the heart of the debate is its unique business model, which combines battery leasing with carbon credit trading, allowing the company to monetize environmental benefits while riders shoulder ongoing costs.
Spiro, founded as M Auto in India in 2019 and rebranded under parent company Equitane in 2022, positions itself as Africa’s leading electric vehicle provider.
Operating in seven countries including Kenya, Benin, Togo, Rwanda, Uganda, and Nigeria, the company boasts over 22,000 electric motorbikes on the road and 1,630 battery swap stations.
In Kenya, Spiro partners with local financiers like Watu Credit, Mogo Auto, and KCB to offer bikes on credit, aiming to make eco-friendly transport accessible to boda boda riders.
The company’s “battery as a service” model is central to its operations.
Riders purchase or lease the bike frame, starting at around KSh 95,000, but do not own the battery.
Instead, they pay for swaps at Spiro stations, typically KSh 290 per swap or KSh 180 daily after an initial deposit.
This setup ensures batteries remain in circulation and under Spiro’s control, with the company handling maintenance and recycling.
Proponents argue it lowers upfront costs and promotes sustainability, with Spiro claiming to have saved 56,379 tonnes of CO2 emissions across its fleet.
But here’s the twist: Spiro isn’t just an EV company. It’s deeply involved in carbon trading.
By deploying electric bikes that replace petrol-powered ones, Spiro generates carbon credits based on avoided emissions. These credits are registered, validated, and sold on global markets, providing a key revenue stream.
In October 2025, Spiro partnered with Dutch firm Zeroca to aggregate and monetize credits from operations in Kenya and Nigeria, potentially generating millions annually.
For instance, $2.1 million from 35,000 bikes offsetting 70,000 tons of CO2.
The partnership aligns with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, enabling international carbon transfers.
Critics, however, claim this model prioritizes carbon profits over riders. “Spiro is a carbon credit selling enterprise.
That’s why the rider can’t own the battery. Whoever owns the battery claims the carbon credits,” posted Kenyan spoken word artist Willie Oeba on X, highlighting how battery control allows Spiro to capture the environmental value.
This structure has fueled Spiro’s growth, with the company raising over $213 million in the past two years, including a landmark $100 million round in October 2025 led by Afreximbank’s FEDA fund, the largest ever in Africa’s e-mobility sector.
The funds are earmarked for expanding swap infrastructure and targeting 100,000 bikes by year-end.
Amid this expansion, allegations of predatory practices have exploded.
Popular radio presenter Rapcha The Sayantist has led the charge, calling Spiro a “criminal organisation” in a series of viral X posts that garnered thousands of likes and reposts.
He accuses the company of remotely disabling batteries if a bike is inactive for five days, due to illness, accidents, or repairs, and flagging them as “stolen,” forcing riders to tow bikes to Spiro’s Mlolongo station for reactivation.
Rapcha also claims Spiro withholds chargers in Kenya, unlike in India, creating dependency on pricey swap stations, and maintains a monopoly on spare parts sold at up to ten times market rates. “Avoid SPIRO at all costs!!! Even employed people are given leave, SPIRO is a slave plantation,” he warned.
Other voices echo these concerns.
Blogger and whistleblower Nelson Amenya alleged a shady tax deal with former Trade Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria, where Kenyan taxpayers footed KSh 2.5 billion in import duties, enabling Spiro to undercut competitors by 30%.
In October, riders protested against financing partner Huduma Credit for allegedly collecting KSh 9,500 deposits from over 2,500 people, totaling KSh 24 million, without delivering bikes.
X user Ricardo Monteblanco described the model as “exploiting Kenyans” by deceiving riders with low deposits while leasing expensive batteries.
These claims align with broader issues in Kenya’s digital lending space, where complaints of predatory practices have surged 28%.
Partners like Mogo AutoMogo Auto face their own class-action suits for misleading loan terms and high interest rates.
Critics argue Spiro’s system traps riders in perpetual payments without full ownership, with one X user noting that after KSh 142,000 in financing costs, the battery remains leased.
Spiro has not publicly responded to these specific allegations in recent statements or on its website, which emphasizes job creation and emission reductions.
However, the company has defended its model in funding announcements, highlighting affordability and sustainability.
X user Roddie countered that the leasing approach exploits Kenya’s preference for cheap entry points, separating costly batteries from the bike sale.
Journalist Sholla Ard criticized Spiro’s handling of complaints, alleging they shared personal data without consent and rely on influencers for damage control.
As Kenya pushes for green transport, Spiro’s carbon trading ambitions could drive real environmental gains.
But for riders, the risks are clear: dependency on swaps, potential repossessions, and hidden costs.
Experts recommend alternatives like fully ownable electric bikes from other brands.
With ongoing investigations into digital lending and calls for parliamentary regulation, Kenyans are advised to read contracts carefully and report issues to the Competition Authority of Kenya.
This story draws from public records, social media, and company statements. Spiro did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.
Nairobi, December 19, 2025 A fierce online battle has erupted between popular Kenyan radio presenter and comedian Francis Kibe Njeri, known as Rapcha The Sayantist, and electric mobility company Spiro, with the entertainer alleging that the firm engages in unfair and potentially fraudulent business practices that have left him and other riders out of pocket.
Rapcha, who hosts a reggae show on Hot 96 FM and is recognized for his blunt commentary on social issues, has used his X platform to launch a blistering series of accusations against Spiro over the past week.
In a post on December 11, he claimed that Spiro remotely disables batteries and flags them as stolen if a bike remains inactive for just five days, even in cases of illness, accidents or repairs. “Is Spiro a business or criminal organisation?” he wrote, sharing images of what he described as over 100 repossessed bikes at a Spiro station in Mlolongo.
He further alleged that Spiro maintains a stranglehold on spare parts, selling them at inflated prices up to ten times market rates and does not provide chargers with the bikes, forcing users to rely on the company’s swapping stations.
In subsequent posts, Rapcha detailed his personal nightmare: after paying KSh 95,000 for a bike and agreeing to daily payments of KSh 180, his battery was deactivated and the bike was allegedly handed over to influencers for what he called a smear campaign against him. “SPIRO ARE CRIMINALS!!! Avoid or lose your money!!! I’m a victim!!!” he repeated in multiple updates, including one on December 19 showing photos of his bike purportedly in the hands of strangers.
ScreenshotScreenshot
The allegations have gained explosive traction online, with thousands of likes, reposts and comments from Kenyans echoing similar frustrations.
Some users described Spiro’s model as a scam, comparing it to predatory lending schemes, while others defended it as a necessary approach to manage expensive batteries in an electric vehicle ecosystem.
Rapcha’s campaign has highlighted broader concerns about consumer rights in Kenya’s growing electric mobility sector, where companies like Spiro aim to promote sustainable transport but face mounting scrutiny over transparency.
Spiro operates across six African countries including Kenya, Benin, Togo, Rwanda, Uganda and Nigeria, with over 60,000 electric bikes in circulation and approximately 1,500 battery swap stations as of November 2025.
The company offers bikes starting at KSh 95,000 under a battery as a service model, where riders own the bike frame but lease the battery through swaps. Riders pay approximately KSh 290 per battery swap.
This, Spiro argues, keeps upfront costs low and ensures battery health and circulation.
In response to the backlash, Spiro has defended its policies, stating that dormant batteries are repossessed after five days of inactivity to maintain asset efficiency and safety.
A company notice from Africa Smart Mobility Solutions Limited, Spiro’s legal entity, explains that this prevents degradation and keeps batteries available for active users. Spiro has acknowledged that the system can seem rigid and is reviewing how to handle exceptional circumstances such as medical issues or repairs.
However, critics including Rapcha argue that the policy effectively punishes riders without clear communication or recourse.
Screenshot
This is not the first controversy for Spiro in Kenya. In October, riders accused financing partner Huduma Credit of defrauding them of over KSh 24 million after failing to deliver bikes despite collecting KSh 9,500 deposits each.
Protesters gathered at Huduma offices demanding refunds, citing unprofessional treatment.
Huduma CEO Jimal attributed delays to a backlog of around 2,136 orders and offered refunds to those opting out.
Additionally, in July 2024, whistleblower Nelson Amenya alleged that Spiro benefited from a controversial tax arrangement involving former Trade Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria, where taxpayers would pay KSh 2.5 billion in import taxes to allow the company to sell products 30 percent cheaper than competitors.
Spiro has not issued a detailed public response to these claims.
Consumer advocates have called for regulatory oversight, urging bodies like the Competition Authority of Kenya and the Consumer Protection Authority to investigate Spiro’s practices.
“Transparency in asset ownership and fair treatment of customers are essential in emerging industries like electric mobility,” said a source familiar with the sector, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Rapcha, who has a history of using humor and media to address societal issues from his early days performing at funerals and church gatherings in Mathare Valley, through his time at Ghetto Radio to the satirical show Raiyaa with Mwafreeka on NTV and his current Hot 96 FM role has framed his campaign as a stand for ordinary Kenyans. The comedian and presenter, who has previously worked on Churchill Show and is known for his Raw N Unkut stand up comedy specials, has never shied away from confronting powerful interests. Spiro, meanwhile, emphasizes its contributions to reducing emissions and creating jobs in the boda boda industry.
As the dispute unfolds, both sides have exchanged pointed messages online, with Rapcha releasing private chats and Spiro supporters accusing him of misinformation. Efforts to reach Spiro for direct comment on Rapcha’s specific case were unsuccessful by press time, and Rapcha declined to provide further details beyond his public posts.
Kenya Insights will continue monitoring developments in this story.
