The Media Council of Kenya (MCK) has issued a show-cause notice to Kameme FM over a series of broadcasts that allegedly contained offensive language, unverified political allegations and breaches of professional journalism standards.
In a letter dated June 16, 2026, addressed to Mediamax Network Limited Chief Executive Officer Ken Ngaruiya, the Council raised concerns about content aired on the station’s popular Arahuka and Canjamuka programmes between June 8 and June 15.
The action followed a complaint filed by a member of the public, Henry Mburu, who accused the station of airing content that was biased and potentially capable of fuelling ethnic tensions.
Following a review of recordings and transcripts from the broadcasts, the Council concluded that while the material did not meet the threshold for hate speech or ethnic incitement, several aspects of the programmes appeared to breach provisions of the Code of Conduct for Media Practice, 2025.
At the centre of the findings was presenter Muthoni wa Kirumba, popularly known as Baby Top.
According to the Council, one of the most serious incidents occurred on June 9 during the Canjamuka programme when the presenter allegedly directed an insult at former political aspirant Paul Waiganjo during a live broadcast.
The remarks, delivered in Kikuyu, translated to “You, dog, you are not God.”
The Council found the language vulgar, offensive and unjustified in the context of public broadcasting. The regulator also questioned why the station’s mandatory seven-second delay mechanism failed to prevent the remarks from reaching listeners.
The Council further examined broadcasts aired on June 11 in which Baby Top allegedly claimed that Public Service Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria was orchestrating a campaign against Kameme FM and attempting to frame the station over allegations of incitement linked to events in Ol Kalou.
The programme also reportedly referenced the Pangani Six matter and warned against what was described on air as a witch-hunt targeting Baby Top, Kameme FM, former President Uhuru Kenyatta and businessman Gatonye Mbugua.
According to the Council, those allegations were presented to audiences without evidence of prior verification and without affording the individuals mentioned an opportunity to respond.
Another programme aired on June 14 attracted scrutiny after the presenter alleged that her personal phone number and location had been leaked online and linked the incident to political actors and security agencies.
The Council found no indication that the claims had been independently verified before being broadcast.
In its findings, the regulator cited possible violations of several clauses of the Code of Conduct for Media Practice.
The Council said the station may have breached Clause 4 on accuracy and fairness by failing to verify allegations before presenting them as fact. It also cited Clause 5, which requires journalists and broadcasters to distinguish clearly between fact, comment and opinion while ensuring fairness to subjects of coverage.
Clause 8, which addresses political neutrality and perceptions of partiality, was also flagged after the broadcasts created the impression of political alignment. The Council further cited Clause 11 relating to editorial safeguards in live broadcasting, particularly the requirement for delay mechanisms capable of filtering offensive content before transmission.
The regulator additionally pointed to Clause 15, which prohibits the broadcast of obscene, offensive or vulgar language unless justified by an overriding public interest, and Clause 12, which places ultimate responsibility for published or broadcast content on editors and media organisations.
Despite the concerns raised, the Council stated that available evidence did not support a finding of hate speech or ethnic incitement. However, it concluded that there had been sufficient grounds to warrant regulatory intervention and issued a Notice to Show Cause requiring the station to explain why enforcement action should not be taken.
Kameme FM has been directed to submit a detailed response by June 19, outlining the editorial controls applied during the broadcasts and explaining the measures in place to ensure compliance with professional standards.
Failure to respond could expose the station to sanctions under the Media Council Act, 2013.
The development places one of Kenya’s most influential vernacular radio stations under renewed scrutiny. Kameme FM commands a significant audience across the Mt Kenya region and has long been a powerful platform in shaping political and social discourse among Kikuyu-speaking listeners.
The case also revives longstanding debates about the role of vernacular media during politically sensitive periods. Following the 2007-08 post-election violence, several inquiries highlighted the influence that local-language radio stations can wield in shaping public opinion and community sentiment.
In recent months, both the Media Council of Kenya and the National Cohesion and Integration Commission have repeatedly warned media houses against disseminating inflammatory, misleading or ethnically charged content as political activity intensifies ahead of future electoral contests.
Media analysts argue that while vernacular stations play a critical role in expanding access to information, their influence also demands strict adherence to professional standards of accuracy, fairness and editorial responsibility.
The Council’s notice signals an increasingly firm regulatory approach toward enforcing those standards while balancing constitutional protections for freedom of expression and media independence.
Kameme FM’s response will now be closely watched by regulators, media practitioners and political actors, with the outcome likely to shape expectations for vernacular broadcasters across the country.
MOMBASA, Kenya — What began as a routine maritime voyage across the Indian Ocean nearly ended in tragedy for seven Kenyan seafarers after a Tanzanian court sentenced them to 20 years in prison over a human trafficking case that shocked both countries.
Today, however, the seven men are back on Kenyan soil after a high-level diplomatic intervention led by Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs Cabinet Secretary Hassan Ali Joho secured their freedom through negotiations that converted their lengthy prison terms into a financial penalty.
The emotional scenes that unfolded at Moi International Airport in Mombasa on Friday captured the relief of families who had spent months fearing their loved ones would spend the next two decades behind bars in a foreign country.
Behind the reunions was a complex diplomatic effort involving Kenyan and Tanzanian authorities, maritime officials, legal teams and government negotiators who worked quietly to find a solution after the crew members were convicted by a Tanzanian court.
The seven Kenyans were among nine crew members arrested on March 30 after Tanzanian authorities intercepted the Kenyan-flagged vessel FV Sea Mfalme near Kilwa.
The vessel was found carrying 61 undocumented migrants, including nationals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.
Tanzanian prosecutors accused those on board of participating in a human trafficking operation. The charges carried severe penalties under Tanzanian law, and the court eventually imposed 20-year prison sentences on the convicted crew members.
For relatives of the seafarers, the ruling was devastating.
Family members consistently maintained that the crew were ordinary employees hired to work aboard the vessel and had no knowledge of any alleged trafficking activities. They argued that the men were being punished for decisions made by individuals who controlled the vessel’s operations.
According to sources familiar with the investigations, FV Sea Mfalme had reportedly been chartered by a businessman from Comoros for maritime operations within the Indian Ocean region. Documentation for the voyage is understood to have been processed through Kenyan maritime authorities in line with standard procedures.
Investigators later concluded that the vessel’s captain allegedly deviated from the original assignment and became involved in transporting undocumented migrants, drawing the vessel and its crew into a criminal case that quickly escalated into an international diplomatic issue.
As pressure mounted from families and maritime stakeholders, Kenyan authorities began engaging their Tanzanian counterparts in search of a solution.
Sources with knowledge of the negotiations said one proposal initially considered involved transferring the convicted seafarers to Kenya to serve their sentences. Discussions later evolved into efforts to secure an alternative punishment that would allow the men to return home.
The breakthrough came when officials successfully negotiated a fine option in place of the lengthy custodial sentences.
The Kenyan government, through the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs, facilitated payment of Tsh10 million, equivalent to roughly Sh500,000, paving the way for the release of the seven seafarers.
Speaking after receiving the men in Mombasa, Joho described the case as one of the most difficult maritime welfare matters his ministry has handled in recent months.
He said the seafarers had endured a harrowing ordeal after facing the possibility of spending decades in prison far from home.
The Cabinet Secretary also emphasized that the government would continue supporting Kenyan seafarers who encounter legal and humanitarian challenges while working in regional and international waters.
The case has exposed growing concerns within East Africa’s maritime industry, where crew members can sometimes become entangled in criminal investigations linked to vessel owners, operators or captains despite having limited control over a ship’s broader activities.
Industry stakeholders say the incident highlights the vulnerability of seafarers working aboard vessels operating across multiple jurisdictions. Many crew members depend entirely on information provided by ship operators and may have little knowledge of activities taking place beyond their immediate responsibilities.
The release of the seven Kenyans has also renewed calls for stronger oversight of vessel movements, improved crew vetting systems and enhanced protections for maritime workers.
Joho announced that Kenya intends to strengthen safeguards within the sector through the introduction of Seafarers’ Identity Documents and expanded recognition agreements with regional and international maritime partners.
The reforms, he said, are intended to improve verification procedures, enhance compliance with international maritime standards and reduce the risk of Kenyan crew members finding themselves caught up in similar cases in the future.
Meanwhile, the legal saga surrounding FV Sea Mfalme is far from over.
Sources indicate that the vessel remains detained at Kilwa Masoko in Tanzania as an exhibit in ongoing legal proceedings involving other suspects connected to the alleged trafficking operation.
For the seven Kenyan seafarers, however, the chapter that once threatened to define the rest of their lives has finally come to an end. After months of uncertainty, courtroom battles and diplomatic negotiations, they have returned home to their families, carrying with them a story that underscores both the dangers of maritime work and the power of regional diplomacy when lives hang in the balance.
A Cairo-headquartered AI company operated for years inside Kenya’s public health system processing the bodies and medical secrets of tens of thousands of the country’s most vulnerable citizens without a single valid licence, data registration, or meaningful patient consent. The courts have now acted. But the data is already gone. This is the story of how it happened, who enabled it, and what the disaster that may yet come could look like.
THE MORNING A PATIENT’S LUNGS LEFT THE COUNTRY
The patient who walked into a public health facility in Kisii County for a chest X-ray did not know that the image of their lungs would, within minutes, leave Kenya entirely. They signed no form authorising it. They were told nothing of Egyptian cloud servers, of radiologists working from screens in Nairobi, Riyadh, or Cairo, of artificial intelligence systems ingesting their scan as raw training data. They came for a diagnosis. What they gave away, without knowing it, was far more.
Their DICOM file a digital imaging format that carries not just the scan itself but embedded metadata including patient name, date of birth, scan date, referring physician, and device identifiers was uploaded to the platform of Rology Medical Kenya Limited. From there, it transited to cloud infrastructure controlled by the company’s Egyptian parent, Rology Inc., headquartered in Cairo.
The report that came back may or may not have been produced by a radiologist holding a valid Kenyan licence. The scan itself may or may not have been used to train a proprietary artificial intelligence product now marketed across thirteen countries and sold to hospitals in the Middle East and Africa.
This patient does not know any of this. Neither, until recently, did the Kenyan public.
On or around June 12, 2026, Justice Patricia Mande Nyaudi of the Milimani Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court changed that. In a ruling that should trigger a national reckoning, she ordered the immediate suspension of Rology’s Kenyan operations. The company which described itself as a revolutionary teleradiology solution expanding healthcare access to underserved Africans — was found to have operated outside the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act, the Data Protection Act, the Digital Health Act, and the Digital Health (Data Exchange Component) Regulations 2025. The court further directed the Ministry of Health and the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council to revoke any licences or approvals tied to the handling of patients’ portable personal health records on the platform.
The ruling was decisive. The damage, however, was already done. By Rology’s own admission to the court, its platform had served more than 60,000 Kenyan patients and supported over forty public health facilities across the country. Those patients’ X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, and associated medical histories are already in Cairo-controlled infrastructure. The court order cannot reach them there. Kenyan law cannot compel their deletion. The patients themselves have no accessible path to demand their removal, rectification, or compensation.
The privacy time bomb is not ticking. It has already detonated. The fallout is just not yet visible.
“Their X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, and medical histories are already in Cairo-controlled infrastructure. The court order cannot reach them there.”
THE COMPANY THEY DID NOT WANT KENYA TO SCRUTINISE
Rology was founded in Cairo in October 2017 by four entrepreneurs: Amr Abodraiaa, Moaaz Hossam, Mahmoud Eldefrawy, and Bassam Khallaf. Its pitch was compelling and, in the context of genuine access challenges in African and Middle Eastern healthcare systems, not without merit: a cloud-based, zero-setup teleradiology platform that matched patient scans with remote radiologists through AI-assisted intelligent matchmaking. No infrastructure investment required. No radiologist on-site needed. Just a laptop, an internet connection, and Rology’s platform.
The company positioned itself as addressing one of medicine’s most acute shortages. There are, by some estimates, fewer than one radiologist per million people across significant portions of sub-Saharan Africa. Fourteen African countries have no radiologists at all. Into this gap, Rology stepped with promises of thirty-minute turnaround times, twelve radiology sub-specialities, eight imaging modalities, and an AI system it claimed achieved 99.89 percent clinical accuracy.
The marketing was polished and the investor narrative was compelling. In October 2023, Rology secured 510(k) clearance from the United States Food and Drug Administration for its platform as a Class II medical image management and processing system. The company declared this clearance established Rology as “the world’s premier FDA-cleared on-demand and 2-sided teleradiology solution.” Its Chief Medical Officer, Mahmoud Eldefrawy, stated publicly that the clearance “emphasises our commitment to cybersecurity and regulatory adherence.” Its Chief Business Officer, Moaaz Hossam, called it “hope for countless medical providers, especially SMEs and the underserved public hospitals.”
In June 2023, Rology had already expanded into Saudi Arabia through the acquisition of Arkan United, a Jeddah-based teleradiology provider, for an undisclosed sum. By December 2025, it closed a growth funding round backed by an extraordinary roster of global health investors: the Philips Foundation, Johnson & Johnson Impact Ventures, the Sanofi Global Health Unit’s Impact Fund, and MIT Solve Innovation Future. The size of the round was not disclosed. The company said the funding would support expansion across the Middle East and Africa, with Kenya and Saudi Arabia cited as growth markets. Marketing materials released at the time highlighted the launch of eight AI tools and a network of over two hundred radiologists operating across more than thirteen countries, serving over three hundred hospitals.
What the press releases did not mention what the investors were apparently not told, or did not investigate was that Rology’s Kenyan operations were being conducted in comprehensive violation of the country’s legal framework. The company had never registered as a data controller or data processor under the Data Protection Act. It had never obtained the Certificate of Data Handler/Processor from the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner that the KMPDC had made mandatory, with a compliance deadline of March 31, 2025. Its AI platform had never been validated or certified under Kenyan law. The radiologists interpreting Kenyan patients’ scans were not verified to hold Kenyan licences. And the cross-border transfer of patients’ most sensitive health information was occurring without the explicit patient consent or adequate safeguards required by Section 48 of the Data Protection Act.
The company was not operating in a grey area. It was operating in comprehensive defiance of the rules governing every element of what it was doing.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF EXTRACTION
To understand what Rology actually built in Kenya, one must understand how its platform functions technically. Hospitals connected to Rology through a tool called Rology Connect, an automatic image acquisition system that uploads DICOM files directly from the facility’s imaging equipment to the platform. Those files — containing both the scan and the embedded metadata identifying the patient were encrypted and transmitted to Rology’s cloud infrastructure. The company’s servers, controlled from Cairo, then routed the files to available radiologists across its global network, matching cases by subspeciality and availability.
Rology told the court that reports were subsequently reviewed by licensed Kenyan radiologists before release to hospitals. The company also told the court that it had never sold patient data. But the question is not merely whether raw data was sold. The more complex and consequential questions are these: which radiologists, in which countries, reviewed Kenyan patient scans, and under what licencing authority? To what jurisdiction were those cloud servers actually subject? Were those scans used to train Rology’s eight proprietary AI tools? Were they retained after the diagnostic purpose was fulfilled? To whom, beyond the immediate interpreting radiologist, did the data become accessible? None of these questions were satisfactorily answered during proceedings.
What is known is the business result. In 2023, Rology’s Kenyan operations grew 169 percent in sales and 223 percent in gross revenues. That explosive growth was built directly on patient encounters: each scan generated a billable report and, crucially, a data asset. Each DICOM file that passed through Rology’s platform became, in a meaningful commercial sense, an input to the company’s artificial intelligence development pipeline. The AI tools Rology is now marketing across thirteen countries and positioning for global expansion were trained on radiology data. Some portion of that data came from Kenyan patients who were told they were getting a diagnostic service not that they were contributing their bodies to a foreign AI company’s commercial product development.
No benefit-sharing framework exists. No data governance agreement with the Kenyan facilities is publicly documented. No portion of the value created from Kenyan patient encounters has flowed back to those patients or to Kenya’s health system. The model is extractive by design: data flows in one direction, from Kenyan bodies to Egyptian servers, and value flows in one direction, from Kenyan encounters to a Cairo startup’s investor pitch deck.
“In 2023, Rology’s Kenyan operations grew 223% in gross revenues. That explosive growth was built directly on patient encounters each scan a billable report, and a data asset.”
THE CONSENT THAT WAS NEVER GIVEN
Informed consent in healthcare is not a bureaucratic formality. It is a constitutional right. Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every person the right to privacy, including the right not to have information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed, and the right to have the privacy of their communications respected.
The Data Protection Act gives teeth to this right in the digital context, establishing specific obligations on data controllers and processors, including the requirement for lawful basis for processing, purpose limitation, and explicit consent for sensitive personal data.
Medical imaging data is among the most sensitive categories of personal information that exists. An X-ray, CT scan, or MRI reveals not just the presenting condition but potentially: reproductive health status, pregnancy, evidence of prior surgeries, signs of chronic or degenerative disease, potential genetic conditions, and markers of lifestyle that may be used for insurance or employment discrimination. DICOM files are particularly rich: the metadata embedded in each file can include patient identifiers, referring physician details, and scan parameters that may assist re-identification even if names are stripped.
The patients who used Rology’s platform through their public health facilities consented to a diagnostic scan. Full stop. They consented to their image being interpreted and a report being returned to their doctor. They did not consent to that image leaving Kenya. They did not consent to it being processed on Egyptian cloud infrastructure. They did not consent to it being interpreted by radiologists whose location, identity, and Kenyan licencing status were not disclosed to them. They did not consent to it being used as training data for commercial AI tools sold globally. They did not consent to its indefinite retention in a foreign jurisdiction.
The absence of consent for these secondary uses is not a minor procedural lapse. It is a fundamental violation of patients’ constitutional rights. The KMPDC had made this explicit in its December 2024 directive: data handler registration was mandatory by March 31, 2025, and the failure to obtain it would render processing of health data unlawful. Rology either ignored this directive or chose to continue operations in the knowledge that it was not compliant. The KMPDC, which issued the directive, took no visible enforcement action against Rology until the court forced its hand.
The court’s costs order against the KMPDC in the judgment is a quiet but pointed rebuke of an institution that put patient safety at risk through inaction.
THE DATA IN CAIRO: WHAT COULD GO WRONG
The suspension of Rology’s Kenyan operations does not retrieve the data. More than 60,000 patient records DICOM imaging files and associated clinical histories remain in Egyptian-controlled cloud infrastructure. They will remain there unless and until Rology is compelled to delete them, confirms their deletion, and that deletion is independently verified. None of these conditions has yet been met. The Kenyan state has no jurisdiction over Egyptian servers. The ODPC has no enforcement reach into Cairo. Affected patients have no practical mechanism to demand deletion, correction, or access to their own records in a foreign jurisdiction.
This creates a cascade of ongoing and escalating risks that do not diminish simply because the company’s Kenyan operations have been suspended.
The first and most immediate risk is cybersecurity. Teleradiology platforms are among the most targeted categories of healthcare infrastructure in the global ransomware economy. Medical imaging data is extraordinarily valuable: it cannot be changed, it contains highly sensitive personal information, and healthcare organisations under ransomware pressure have historically paid. The experience of radiology providers globally is instructive and alarming. Eastern Radiologists in North Carolina suffered a network intrusion in November 2023 that exposed the protected health information of 886,746 patients, including Social Security numbers, insurance information, and imaging results; the resulting class action settlement reached USD 3.25 million.
East River Medical Imaging in New York suffered a breach in 2023 affecting 605,809 individuals, settling for USD 1.85 million. Consulting Radiologists in Minnesota suffered a network intrusion in February 2024 affecting nearly 584,000 people, settling for USD 2.2 million.
In each case, stolen data included medical histories, diagnoses, imaging results, and financial information. In each case, that data was published on the dark web, placing affected individuals at risk of identity theft, insurance fraud, and targeted scams for years.
For Kenyan patients whose data sits on Rology’s servers, the risk is structurally similar but the recourse is structurally worse. American patients whose data was breached could file class actions in federal court, benefit from mandatory HHS breach notification requirements, and receive credit monitoring paid for by the settling defendants.
Kenyan patients whose data is breached from a Cairo-based company’s servers face a different reality: enforcement requires international legal cooperation, the company’s jurisdiction is Egyptian, and practical recourse for individual patients is close to nil.
The second risk is re-identification. The healthcare and technology research community has extensively documented that supposedly de-identified medical imaging data is far more re-identifiable than commonly assumed. DICOM files carry embedded metadata that can survive imperfect anonymisation. Medical images themselves particularly CT scans and MRIs contain unique anatomical features, body markers, implant signatures, and structural characteristics that sophisticated AI systems can use to re-link supposedly anonymous scans to specific individuals. Research published in leading radiology journals has confirmed that pixel-level patterns in medical images can be exploited through inference attacks conducted by third parties, revealing patient anatomy, demographics, and vendor-specific features.
The combination of de-identified imaging data with other available information including from prior data breaches, commercial data brokers, or social media can permit re-identification of individuals who believed their privacy was protected.
Once a patient is re-identified from their medical imaging data, the exposure is total. Diagnoses of cancer, HIV, tuberculosis, reproductive conditions, mental health indicators, chronic disease, addiction, and physical trauma are all potentially inferable from imaging data. This information is extraordinarily valuable to insurance companies seeking to deny coverage, to employers engaged in unlawful discrimination, to blackmailers, and to identity thieves. Healthcare data commands among the highest per-record prices on illicit markets precisely because it is uniquely sensitive and practically immutable.
The third risk is secondary commercial use. Rology’s AI tools were trained on radiology data. The company has launched eight AI products now marketed globally. There is no public disclosure of what proportion of the training data for these tools originated from Kenyan patients, under what governance framework that data was used, whether any retention or use limitations were imposed, or whether deletion of Kenyan patient data from AI training datasets an extraordinarily difficult technical undertaking is even possible at this stage. If Kenyan patients’ scans were used to train commercially deployed AI tools, those patients became unconsenting contributors to a commercial product generating revenue across thirteen countries, with no benefit flowing back to them.
The fourth risk is governmental access. Egypt’s legal framework for government access to data held by domestic entities differs materially from Kenya’s. Egyptian authorities may, under applicable Egyptian law, access data held by Egyptian companies on Egyptian or Egyptian-controlled servers. There is no guarantee that Kenyan patients’ health data would be protected from such access. Kenyan law has no jurisdictional reach over such requests or disclosures.
“Healthcare data commands the highest per-record prices on illicit markets because it is uniquely sensitive and practically immutable. These patients have no practical recourse.”
A GLOBAL PATTERN KENYA IGNORED
Kenya is not the first country to confront a foreign AI company using patient imaging data without adequate consent or governance. The pattern is global, and the warning signs were visible long before Rology’s Kenyan operations became the subject of litigation.
In Australia, the country’s largest diagnostic imaging provider, I-MED Radiology Network, shared patient chest X-rays, CT scans, and associated reports with health technology firm Harrison.ai to train an AI diagnostic tool later marketed as Annalise.ai. I-MED shared a dataset that reports described as containing fewer than thirty million images. Patients were not informed, and no consent was sought. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner opened preliminary inquiries in 2024. I-MED claimed the data had been de-identified; Harrison.ai distanced itself from responsibility, asserting that compliance was I-MED’s obligation. The OAIC ultimately concluded its inquiries without adverse finding, determining that the de-identification was sufficient. The episode nonetheless exposed a fundamental tension at the heart of AI healthcare development: patients generate the data; companies capture the value; patients are the last to know.
In the United States, a teleradiology company called The Radiology Group was required to pay USD 3.1 million to the federal government after a Department of Justice investigation found it had fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid for radiology services purportedly performed by US-based radiologists when the actual interpretations had been produced by contractors in India who were not permitted to practice medicine in the United States. American radiologists had simply rubber-stamped reports prepared offshore. The settlement directly echoes the accountability gap at the heart of the Rology Kenya case: patients and payers were told one thing; a different and less accountable arrangement operated in practice.
In Kenya itself, the anxiety over foreign custody of health data had already surfaced at the highest political levels. In December 2025 just months before the Rology ruling the High Court suspended key components of a USD 1.6 billion to 2.5 billion health cooperation framework signed between Kenya and the United States, after civil society petitioners argued it posed risks to Kenyans’ medical data and national sovereignty. Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued conservatory orders preventing the operationalisation of any provisions that “provide for or facilitate the transfer, sharing or dissemination of medical, epidemiological or sensitive personal health data.” The court was saying, with considerable clarity, that Kenya’s health data sovereignty was non-negotiable even in transactions with allied sovereign governments. That same principle applied, with equal force, to a Cairo-based AI startup. The regulatory system simply failed to apply it.
THREE INSTITUTIONS THAT LOOKED AWAY
The Rology scandal is, at its core, a story of institutional failure. The company did not operate covertly. It signed contracts with public health facilities. It pitched its services to counties and hospitals. It published marketing materials naming Kenyan partnerships. It submitted evidence to a court about its scale and growth. It was not invisible. It was simply not being watched by the people whose job it was to watch.
The Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council issued its data handler certification directive in December 2024 and made the March 31, 2025 deadline explicit. The penalties for non-compliance were clear: fines of up to KSh 5 million or 1 percent of annual turnover. There is no public record of any KMPDC enforcement action against Rology before the court ruling. The institution whose directive Rology was violating did not act. The costs order against the KMPDC in Justice Nyaudi’s judgment reflects the court’s assessment that the council bore responsibility for the environment in which this occurred.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner had, by March 2026, handled over 9,000 complaints and issued enforcement notices and compensation orders in other sectors. It fined Nairobi Hospital for the unlawful use of a patient’s image in advertising materials. It pursued a credit company for sending unsolicited marketing messages. These are genuine enforcement actions on genuine violations. But the ODPC issued no enforcement notice against an operator that was processing the sensitive medical imaging data of over 60,000 Kenyans without registration as a data controller, without an ODPC certificate, and while conducting systematic cross-border data transfers in violation of Section 48 of the Data Protection Act. A company fined for using one patient photograph in an advertisement; a company transferring tens of thousands of patients’ CT scans to Egypt: one attracted enforcement action; the other did not.
The Digital Health Agency, established precisely to ensure data security and govern health data portability and exchange systems, produced no publicly available audit, statement, or regulatory intervention regarding Rology’s operations prior to the court ruling. Its mandate existed. It did not exercise it.
Into this regulatory vacuum, a private professional association the Kenya Association of Radiologists jfiled a petition at its own expense and pursued it to judgment. The KAR and its officials, led by Dr Gladys Mwango, Dr Brian Bwombuna, Dr Felister Wangari, and Dr Leonard Gikera, and represented by Conrad Law Advocates LLP, did what three government institutions with statutory mandates failed to do. The irony of that inversion a professional guild doing the work of state regulators should not pass without remark.
THE INVESTORS WHO FUNDED NON-COMPLIANCE
The December 2025 funding round that Rology closed was not the backing of a fringe operator. The Philips Foundation is the philanthropic arm of one of the world’s largest medical technology companies, with a stated mission of improving access to quality healthcare. Johnson & Johnson Impact Ventures is the impact investing vehicle of the largest healthcare conglomerate on earth. The Sanofi Global Health Unit’s Impact Fund is backed by one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. MIT Solve Innovation Future is associated with one of the world’s most respected research universities. These are not investors without the resources, expertise, or institutional capability to conduct due diligence on regulatory compliance in a specific market they cited as a growth engine.
Rology’s December 2025 press materials explicitly cited Kenya as a growth market. The round was raised to “support its expansion in the Middle East and Africa” and “widen access to faster diagnostics in low- and middle-income countries.” Kenya was the proof point, the operational example, the demonstration of impact. The investors who validated Rology’s growth narrative in December 2025 were, at that moment, less than three months from a court ruling that would find the operations they had funded to be in comprehensive violation of Kenyan law.
What due diligence was performed on Rology’s data protection registration status in Kenya? What due diligence was performed on whether interpreting radiologists held valid Kenyan licences? What due diligence was performed on the governance framework for cross-border patient data transfers? These are not arcane questions. They are the foundational compliance questions that any responsible investor in a healthcare platform operating in a regulated jurisdiction should be asking before committing capital. They remain, for now, unanswered. These investors owe the public a full account.
THE RECKONING THAT IS NOW REQUIRED
The court has ruled. Rology’s Kenyan operations are suspended. But the ruling closes a chapter that should not have opened; it does not resolve the consequences that are already in motion.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner must open a formal, urgent investigation into every aspect of Rology’s data operations in Kenya: what data was collected, how it was processed, where it was stored, to whom it was transferred, on what legal basis, what it was used for beyond the immediate diagnostic purpose, whether it was incorporated into AI training datasets, and whether any deletion or security protocols were implemented when operations were suspended. This investigation must have forensic rigour, not the procedural caution that characterised the ODPC’s pre-ruling inaction.
The Digital Health Agency must audit every public health facility that connected to Rology’s platform and produce a public account of the data that left those facilities, the legal basis on which it was transferred, and the current status of that data in Rology’s infrastructure. The results must be published. Affected counties and facilities must be named.
Digital Health Agency CEO Eng.Antony Lenaiyara
The KMPDC must account publicly for why its March 2025 compliance directive produced no enforcement action against Rology. The institution that issued the rules must explain why it did not enforce them.
Rology’s investors; Philips Foundation, Johnson & Johnson Impact Ventures, Sanofi, and MIT Solve — must each issue public statements describing the due diligence they conducted on regulatory compliance, data protection, and patient consent frameworks in Kenya before committing capital. The silence of global health investors when their portfolio companies are found to have processed tens of thousands of patients’ health records unlawfully is not a neutral position.
Most urgently, the sixty thousand-plus Kenyan patients whose data is in Egyptian custody must be informed. They must be told what data was taken, where it sits, what it was used for, what risks they face, and what steps are being taken to protect them. This notification should not wait for litigation or regulatory proceedings to conclude. It should happen now.
Kenya must also urgently accelerate the legislative and regulatory architecture that the Rology case exposed as insufficient. The Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 must include binding provisions for high-risk healthcare AI applications, including mandatory registration, impact assessments, human oversight requirements, and explicit consent frameworks for secondary use of medical data. Cross-border health data transfers must be treated with the seriousness of critical national security infrastructure, not as an afterthought in investor pitch decks.
“These 60,000 patients did not sign up to become data points in a foreign AI pipeline. They went to a clinic for a scan. The system that was supposed to protect them failed at every level.”
WHAT ROLOGY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW
Rology has deployed, in its public communications, a set of claims that warrant direct scrutiny in the light of the court’s findings.
The company claims FDA clearance validates its platform’s safety and legality. This is materially misleading. The FDA 510(k) clearance K231385, granted in October 2023, covers the platform as a Class II medical image management and processing system. It addresses the technical functionality of the platform image acquisition, encryption, transmission, and display. It does not confer any authorisation to operate medical services in Kenya. It does not address compliance with Kenya’s Data Protection Act. It does not constitute a licence to process Kenyan patients’ personal health data without their consent. The FDA clearance and Rology’s Kenyan legal obligations are entirely separate matters, and the company’s suggestion that one validates the other is false.
The company claims its platform disclaims responsibility for diagnostic accuracy. This liability escape is among the most troubling features of its model. Rology marketed accuracy rates as high as 99.89 percent while simultaneously, reportedly, disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of medical reports generated through the platform. A patient who suffered harm from a misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis on the Rology platform would have faced a fractured accountability chain: a foreign parent company, global radiologists whose jurisdictional status is unclear, local validators, and AI outputs sheltered by pre-emptive liability shields. This is not a legitimate model for the practice of medicine.
The company claims it addressed radiologist shortages and expanded healthcare access. This argument has genuine merit as a description of need; it has no merit as a justification for operating outside the law. The shortage of radiologists in Kenya is real. The consequences of that shortage delayed diagnoses, missed cancers, undertreated conditions are genuinely severe. But those consequences cannot justify a company processing Kenyan patients’ most intimate health information without consent, without registration, without oversight, and in violation of the data sovereignty framework Kenya’s legislature and courts have established. Access without accountability is exploitation by another name.
The company claims it served public health facilities and therefore served public interest. What this framing conceals is the commercial reality: Rology was not operating a charity. It was a venture-backed startup that grew 223 percent in gross revenues in a single year in Kenya alone. The public facilities it served became, on this model, channels for extracting commercial value from Kenya’s most vulnerable patients. The rural patient in Kisii who went for an X-ray did not receive a subsidised service. They provided, without knowing it, commercial raw material for a Cairo startup’s AI development pipeline.
THE CLOCK STILL RUNNING
The data has already left. More than 60,000 Kenyans disproportionately from public health facilities, disproportionately from lower-income communities with the least capacity to assert rights or seek redres had their most sensitive medical information extracted, transferred across borders, and processed outside any framework they consented to or that Kenya’s law authorised. Some of them may have cancers detected in those scans. Some may have TB or HIV diagnoses inferable from their imaging. Some may have reproductive health conditions. Some may be identifiable from their anatomical features alone. None of them know their data is in Cairo. None of them can easily get it back.
Rology will likely appeal the suspension. The company has infrastructure, investors, and a global network. It is not going quietly. Its legal team will argue that its local affiliate is a duly incorporated Kenyan company, that its platform provides genuine healthcare benefits, that its AI tools meet international standards, and that the regulatory framework it was operating in was unclear. Some of these arguments have surface plausibility. None of them addresses the foundational fact that the company processed the health data of 60,000 Kenyans without legal authorisation and without the consent of the patients whose bodies it digitised.
The pattern of what happened in Kenya is not unique to Rology and not unique to Africa. Global AI companies, backed by global investors, are systematically mining health data from low-and-middle-income country populationspopulations with less regulatory capacity to resist, less legal infrastructure to pursue redress, and less political power to compel accountability. The data flows from the Global South to corporate servers in Cairo, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, and San Francisco. The AI tools trained on that data are sold back to the same markets at prices those populations struggle to afford. The patients who generated the value receive nothing. The investors who funded the extraction are celebrated at Davos.
Kenya has a functioning data protection law, a Constitutional Bill of Rights, and courts willing to enforce them. Those instruments worked here, eventually, thanks to the persistence of a professional association that was willing to spend its own resources fighting what the state would not. The question now is whether the state will finish what the courts started: whether the ODPC, the Digital Health Agency, the KMPDC, and the Ministry of Health will treat this ruling as a mandate for genuine reckoning, or whether they will allow it to pass as an administrative footnote while the clock on 60,000 Kenyans’ privacy runs out in silence.
The bodies have been digitised. The scans are in Cairo. And the accountability, at long last, must follow them there.
A prominent politician and former Mwingi West parliamentary aspirant has been ordered by a Nairobi court to refund more than Sh1 million to a couple who financed what was presented to them as a lucrative supply tender linked to the Office of the Deputy President.
The ruling, delivered by the Milimani Small Claims Court, found that Jonathan Ngenga Ndisya was liable for money advanced to him by businesswoman Jeniffer Nyambura and her husband Nicholas Nyaga for the procurement and delivery of goods allegedly intended for the Deputy President’s office.
The dispute arose from a series of financial transactions dating back to early 2024, when Ngenga reportedly approached the couple seeking funding to facilitate the supply of food items, furniture and equipment under what he described as an existing government tender opportunity.
Court records show that Nyambura initially advanced Sh728,000 to Ngenga on January 23, 2024. She also paid Sh72,000 directly to a wholesaler for rice supplies and an additional Sh30,000 for fuel expenses at his request.
The court heard that weeks later, Ngenga informed the couple that he had secured another supply opportunity involving furniture and equipment and required additional capital. On February 14, 2024, Nyambura and her husband advanced a further Sh290,000 through mobile money transfers, bringing the total amount contributed to approximately Sh1.12 million.
According to the couple, the money was advanced with the expectation that it would either be repaid or recovered through proceeds from the supply contract. However, after months passed without payment or evidence of successful delivery, they moved to court seeking recovery of the funds.
In his defence, Ngenga denied that the money constituted a loan. Instead, he argued that the parties had entered into a business venture in which the couple and a company identified as Que Beat Entertainment Limited agreed to provide financing while he handled procurement logistics, packaging, transportation and follow-up on payments from the Office of the Deputy President.
He maintained that any repayment obligation was dependent on the government office settling the tender payment and insisted that no payment had been received to date.
However, the court found significant gaps in his defence.
In a judgment delivered on June 5, 2026, Senior Resident Magistrate S. S. Oriwo noted that while the parties may have contemplated repayment upon receipt of payment from the alleged client, the burden remained on Ngenga to prove the existence of such an arrangement and demonstrate that the conditions he relied upon had been met.
The court observed that Ngenga failed to provide documentary evidence showing that goods were ever delivered to the Office of the Deputy President or that any valid supply contract existed.
“When questioned during cross-examination, the respondent conceded that he had no evidence showing that goods were delivered to the Office of the Deputy President,” the court noted.
The magistrate further held that the politician’s explanation amounted to little more than unsupported assertions and did not meet the legal threshold required to defeat the claim.
“The Court is satisfied that the claimants have proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent is liable to refund the monies advanced,” the judgment stated.
The court consequently entered judgment in favour of Nyambura and Nyaga, awarding them Sh1 million together with interest at court rates from the date the suit was filed until payment is made in full.
The case highlights the growing number of disputes emerging from informal financing arrangements tied to government procurement opportunities, where investors and financiers are often persuaded to inject capital into projects based on promised access to lucrative public contracts.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the principle that individuals seeking funding for tender-related ventures must be prepared to provide clear documentation and evidence of both the underlying contracts and the use of investor funds.
For Nyambura and her husband, the judgment marks the end of a lengthy effort to recover money they say was advanced in good faith. For Ngenga, it raises fresh questions about the handling of the purported Deputy President’s Office supply deal and the circumstances under which the funds were obtained.
In the early hours of April 25, 2026, an Isuzu D-Max double-cab pickup registration KCQ 222X, owned by Dawamu Academy Limited, a company controlled by businessman Philip Waithaka Kinuthia and his wife Claudia Wanjiru Waithaka, rolled several times along Ngong Road near Lenana in Nairobi.
Two young Ugandan women, both A-Level students at Peponi International School, were thrown from the vehicle and died at the scene. Others suffered life-threatening injuries.
What followed, according to witness accounts, official communications and court filings, was not merely an investigation into a fatal road crash but an alleged effort to shield the vehicle owner’s minor son from accountability.
The evening had begun as a celebration. Peponi School’s A-Level Class of 2026 had gathered with parents and staff at Muthaiga Country Club for their leavers’ dinner. At about 3:50 a.m., Karen Police Station received reports of a serious accident.
When officers arrived, five students were found in or around the wreckage. Two Ugandan students, Yzeera Ssebunya, daughter of African Wildlife Foundation CEO Kaddu Ssebunya and Doreen Ssebunya, and Danielle “Didi” Mirembe Kembabazi Kavuma, were pronounced dead at the scene. Another foreign student suffered devastating injuries and remains in a coma.
Wreckage of the pickup involved in the fatal accident.
Kinuthia Waithaka, a fellow student, a minor and allegedly the driver, escaped with minor injuries. One other student also survived with relatively minor injuries. Two additional students had reportedly been dropped off before the crash.
Multiple accounts identify Kinuthia Waithaka as the person behind the wheel.
A surviving student is said to have given two separate statements on April 25, one at 6:30 a.m. and another at 4:30 p.m., identifying him as the driver and alleging he had been drinking and speeding. One of the students who left the vehicle earlier has also reportedly identified him as the driver, while another is expected to provide testimony.
In a communication dated May 18, Peponi School headmaster Mark Durston reportedly stated that the businessman’s son had been driving when seven pupils left Muthaiga Country Club in the private vehicle.
Within days, however, a different account emerged.
On April 27, Philip Waithaka Kinuthia reportedly appeared at Karen Police Station accompanied by his 34-year-old nephew.
Both recorded statements claiming the nephew had been driving.
The nephew allegedly told investigators that he lost control while attempting to avoid a motorcycle travelling on the wrong side of the road in rainy conditions.
That account was contradicted by a police officer who attended the scene and reportedly stated that the road was dry and that the vehicle appeared to have been travelling at very high speed.
The family of the student who remains in a coma, through Murgor & Murgor Advocates and lawyer George Ouma, has laid out allegations of a cover-up in court filings and in a formal letter addressed to DCI Director Mohammed Amin.
Copies of the correspondence were sent to DPP Renson Ingonga, Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court and Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi.
The family argues that the actions taken after the crash point to a deliberate effort to conceal facts that could result in criminal liability for both the vehicle owner and his son.
They have also criticised Peponi School for initially denying investigators access to student witnesses unless police obtained a court order and parental consent. By the time court approval was secured on June 5, examinations had concluded and students had dispersed.
Central to the family’s concerns is the claim that no alcohol test was administered to the alleged driver despite repeated witness allegations of intoxication. They further contend that basic accident-scene procedures were not followed.
According to the court filings, the businessman’s son was removed from the scene by family members after contacting them, even as critically injured students remained at the crash site. Police initially moved to charge the 34-year-old nephew with causing death by dangerous driving, a development that the victims’ families view as part of the alleged effort to divert responsibility.
In his statement, Kinuthia Waithaka reportedly claimed he had been asleep and only regained consciousness in hospital, insisting that his cousin had been driving.
However, the family points to a text message allegedly sent by him to a friend’s mother shortly after the crash.
“Good evening Aunty. I am so sorry from the bottom of my heart for putting you and your family in this position. … (Name withheld) is one of the strongest people I know and I know he will fight and pull through.”
The family argues that the message amounts to an acknowledgment of responsibility.
Ownership records also place the vehicle squarely within the Waithaka family’s control.
NTSA records indicate that KCQ 222X was imported in 2018 and registered to Dawamu Academy Limited.
Company records list Philip Waithaka Kinuthia as a director and majority shareholder, holding six shares, while Claudia Wanjiru Waithaka holds three shares and also serves as a director.
Reporting from Uganda, citing sources close to the victims, has further alleged that a designated driver arranged by parents had been available but was dismissed before the students departed.
The same reports claim adults present at the venue expressed concern about the condition of some of the departing students and warned against them driving.
Perhaps most striking has been the limited public scrutiny of the case within Kenya.
While Ugandan media carried extensive coverage of the tragedy and the questions surrounding it, reporting in Kenya remained sparse for weeks until the Daily Nation published a June 14 report detailing the allegations of a cover-up.
The contrast has fuelled concerns among relatives and observers who question why a crash involving multiple international students, two fatalities and allegations of interference attracted so little sustained attention.
The Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court is expected to issue further directions on June 26 in proceedings initially filed by police to obtain access to student witnesses.
The family of the comatose student has since argued that the application has been overtaken by events and is now calling for a fully independent DCI investigation.
Their letter raises concerns about the handling of the case and warns of potential diplomatic ramifications given the nationality of several victims.
At its heart, this case is no longer solely about a fatal road accident.
It concerns allegations that a minor drove while intoxicated and at high speed, claims that he was removed from the scene by family members, conflicting accounts about who was driving, delayed access to key witnesses, the apparent absence of critical forensic testing and persistent questions about whether influential individuals attempted to shape the course of the investigation.
The families of Yzeera Ssebunya and Danielle Mirembe Kembabazi Kavuma, together with the family of the student who remains in a coma, continue to demand answers.
They argue that the evidence already before investigators, including witness statements, school communications, police observations, company records and the disputed text message, raises serious questions that cannot be ignored.
Kenya’s justice system possesses the legal tools necessary to establish the truth. The question confronting investigators is whether those tools will be applied without fear or favour.
For grieving families in Uganda and Kenya, the demand is straightforward: a thorough, transparent and independent investigation capable of determining exactly what happened on Ngong Road and whether anyone sought to obstruct the search for justice.
Anything less risks deepening public suspicion that influence and privilege remain capable of shielding the powerful from accountability while victims and their families are left searching for answers.
The founder and chief executive officer of mTickets Kenya, Brian Okinyi, has been ordered by a court to refund more than Sh527,000 to an Eldoret event organizer after failing to remit ticket sales collected through the company’s platform.
The ruling by the Eldoret Small Claims Court is a major victory for event promoter Marcelina Kiplagat, whose company, Vibrant Vibes Entertainment, organized the highly publicized Backyard Soiree concert that brought South African Amapiano star Tyler ICU to Eldoret in October 2025.
The dispute centered on ticket revenue collected by mTickets, one of Kenya’s leading digital ticketing platforms. According to court documents, Vibrant Vibes Entertainment entered into an agreement with mTickets and Baniyas Square Lounge under which the ticketing company would collect and remit proceeds from ticket sales for the event held at Rupa Grounds on October 5, 2025.
Tickets were sold at Sh1,000 for early bird purchases, Sh1,500 during the advance sales phase and Sh2,000 at the gate. The event attracted 359 paying attendees and generated total revenue of Sh565,800 through the mTickets platform.
Under the agreement, mTickets was entitled to an 8 percent commission on every ticket sold. After deducting its commission of Sh39,606, the company was expected to transfer Sh526,194 to the organizer within 72 hours after the event.
But the money never arrived.
Kiplagat told the court that the failure to release the funds left her struggling to settle obligations amounting to nearly Sh1 million owed to performers, suppliers and service providers who had worked on the concert.
She further stated that despite numerous follow-ups and attempts to resolve the matter outside court, the funds remained unpaid, forcing her to seek legal intervention.
In his defense, Okinyi denied that a valid service agreement existed between the parties. He also argued that the suit had been filed prematurely, claiming the parties had failed to first pursue dispute resolution mechanisms outlined in the contract.
However, the court found his arguments unconvincing.
In its judgment, the court concluded that sufficient evidence had been presented to prove the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties. Among the evidence produced was an agreement dated September 15, 2025, as well as ticket sales statements generated by the mTickets platform itself.
The court noted that while the agreement had only been signed by Okinyi, the claimant had demonstrated that the parties had a prior working relationship and had previously conducted business under similar arrangements.
The judge further observed that ticket sales records generated by mTickets strongly supported Kiplagat’s claim that the company had collected revenue on behalf of the event and was therefore obligated to remit the funds.
“The existence of such records, originating from the Respondent, corroborates the Claimant’s assertion that the Respondent provided ticketing services for the event,” the court ruled.
The court also dismissed Okinyi’s claim that the case had been filed prematurely, noting that he failed to provide evidence supporting his position.
Consequently, the court ordered him to pay Sh527,923 to the organizer, bringing to a close a dispute that has attracted attention within Kenya’s entertainment industry.
The ruling is expected to send a strong message to digital ticketing firms and event service providers about the importance of honoring contractual obligations and promptly remitting funds collected on behalf of clients.
For event organizers who increasingly rely on online ticketing platforms to manage sales and cash flows, the judgment underscores the legal protections available when contractual agreements are breached and revenues fail to reach their intended recipients.
A senior Somali government official remains in custody in Kenya after being charged with allegedly defrauding a Kenyan-Somali businesswoman of $27,000 (about Sh3.5 million) in a suspected fake gold transaction.
Ismael Abubakar Osman, also known as Ismail or Ismael Abukar, is being held at Nairobi’s Industrial Area Remand Prison after prosecutors opposed his release on bail, citing concerns that he poses a flight risk.
The prosecution also told the court that he is linked to ongoing terrorism-related investigations brought against him.
According to court documents, Osman, a Somali citizen who serves as a Senior Environmental Health and Climate Change Adviser in Somalia’s Ministry of Health and Human Services, allegedly obtained the money from businesswoman Ayan Said Isaak on or around June 29, 2025.
Prosecutors claim he falsely represented that he would supply her with 180 grammes of what was described as “Singaporean gold,” despite knowing that no such transaction would take place.
Osman appeared before Makadara Principal Magistrate Gilbert Shikwe and was charged with obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed his release on bond, arguing that he was arrested while allegedly attempting to leave the country through Garissa on his way to Somalia.
Prosecutors maintained that the circumstances surrounding his arrest raise concerns that he may fail to attend future court proceedings if released.
The case has attracted attention because of Osman’s position within the Somali government.
While the allegations remain before the court and have not been proven, the matter has triggered discussion about accountability and integrity among public officials in the region.
The prosecution’s reference to alleged links with ongoing security investigations has added another dimension to the case.
However, details of those claims have not been made public.
The allegations emerge against a backdrop of persistent gold-related fraud cases across East Africa.
Authorities have repeatedly warned investors and traders about criminal networks that use forged documents, fake mineral certificates, and non-existent gold consignments to lure victims into making advance payments.
Kenya has for years grappled with fraudulent gold schemes targeting local and foreign investors, with many cases involving promises of lucrative returns from purported precious metal transactions that ultimately fail to materialise.
Investigators are continuing with inquiries as the criminal proceedings move forward. The court is expected to rule on Osman’s bail application on Monday.
The outcome of the case is likely to be closely watched in both Kenya and Somalia, given the cross-border nature of the allegations and Osman’s role within the Somali government.
NAIROBI, Kenya — Lawyer Conrad Anangwe Maloba has secured a temporary reprieve after the High Court extended conservatory orders barring his arrest and prosecution in connection with a high-profile gold fraud investigation involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye, sitting in Kiambu, extended the orders pending delivery of a judgment scheduled for next month, allowing Maloba and members of his law firm to remain shielded from criminal proceedings for now.
The court also granted the Law Society of Kenya additional time to determine whether it will participate in the case, which has attracted significant attention within legal circles because it touches on the limits of criminal investigations involving advocates acting for clients.
Maloba moved to court after being targeted by investigators over an alleged gold fraud scheme linked to funds that passed through his law firm’s accounts. He argues that his role was strictly professional and limited to managing money held in trust for a client.
The advocate maintains that his firm was instructed by Dubai-based company Sakina Commodities FZCO to hold USD 495,000 in an escrow arrangement and that the firm only received USD 10,000 as legal fees. According to court filings, he insists neither he nor his firm participated in negotiating, facilitating or executing the underlying gold transaction.
He further argues that all payments were processed pursuant to written instructions from the client and that the dispute stems from a legitimate advocate-client relationship rather than any criminal conduct.
The legal battle follows a dramatic series of events that saw Maloba arrested and held in custody before obtaining court orders securing his release.
He was later re-arrested on May 9 and presented before the Milimani Law Courts for plea taking, but the proceedings were halted after the High Court intervened and issued orders suspending the intended prosecution.
In his petition, Maloba contends that investigators are improperly using the criminal justice system to resolve what is essentially a professional dispute.
He has also pointed out that no complaint has been lodged against him before the Advocates Complaints Commission or the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal, arguing that the continued pursuit of criminal charges is therefore unjustified.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, however, has strongly opposed the application. DPP Renson Igonga told the court that the petition is misconceived, filed in bad faith and amounts to an abuse of the judicial process intended to derail lawful investigations and prosecution.
Investigators have similarly defended their actions. In an affidavit filed before the court, Directorate of Criminal Investigations officer George Karanja said Maloba had failed to demonstrate that he would be denied a fair trial or that any prosecution against him would violate the law.
According to investigators, the case originated from a complaint lodged on March 24, 2026, by Andrew Adel Gaballa, a director of Sakina Commodities FZCO. Gaballa alleged that he had fallen victim to offences including obtaining money by false pretences, conspiracy to defraud and money laundering.
The complaint formed part of a broader investigation into suspected fake gold transactions that have continued to draw scrutiny from Kenyan authorities.
Recent investigations by the DCI have uncovered multiple international gold scams involving foreign investors, escrow accounts and allegations of money laundering, highlighting the growing pressure on authorities to crack down on fraud networks operating through purported gold export deals. (The Star (https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2026-02-18-dci-arrests-suspect-in-multi-million-gold-fraud-inquiry-in-nairobi?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
The dispute has emerged against the backdrop of increasing complaints from foreign investors who claim to have lost millions of shillings in fraudulent gold transactions in Kenya. Several cases under investigation this year involve allegations that victims were persuaded to wire funds into accounts presented as escrow facilities before promised gold shipments failed to materialise. (The Standard (https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001544987/dubai-based-australian-loses-sh78-million-in-nairobi-fake-gold-scam?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
For now, Maloba remains protected by the court orders as he awaits a crucial ruling that could determine whether prosecutors will be allowed to proceed with criminal charges or whether the dispute will remain within the realm of professional and commercial litigation.
The High Court’s judgment next month is expected to provide important guidance on where the line should be drawn between an advocate’s professional obligations and potential criminal liability when handling client funds in high-value commercial transactions.
The Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) has dismissed claims by social media personality and entrepreneur Shiquo Hii Style that her shoe business was raided and stock seized by enforcement officers, insisting that no operation was conducted at her Nairobi store.
The authority’s response comes days after Shiquo sparked widespread debate online when she shared emotional videos claiming she had suffered massive losses after authorities allegedly confiscated shoes from her business in a crackdown on counterfeit goods.
The posts quickly went viral, drawing sympathy from followers and reigniting a long-running conversation about Kenya’s thriving market for replica fashion products.
But ACA says the story being told online does not match what happened on the ground.
Speaking to the Nation, ACA Director of Enforcement Osman Yusuf flatly denied that the authority had carried out any raid at Shiquo’s shop located at RNG Plaza in Nairobi’s Central Business District.
“There is no operation that was conducted by ACA at that shop. That is a pure lie,” Yusuf said.
According to the enforcement chief, the authority is aware of ongoing anti-counterfeit operations linked to international investigations but maintains that Shiquo’s business was never among the premises targeted.
Instead, ACA claims the empty shelves featured in videos shared online were the result of a planned relocation rather than an enforcement action.
“The intelligence we have is that she was relocating from one shop to another and used empty shelves to portray a raid,” Yusuf said.
The regulator later issued an official statement reiterating that it had not interfered with any legitimate business operation and that its enforcement activities are strictly limited to combating counterfeit trade.
“ACA’s enforcement activities are directed exclusively at unlawful trade in counterfeit goods,” the authority said.
The agency explained that whenever it conducts enforcement operations, inspectors are required by law to follow strict procedures, including documenting goods, maintaining inventories and preserving seized items pending investigations.
It also noted that traders have a right to provide documentation proving the authenticity of their products and can challenge enforcement decisions through the courts.
The controversy erupted after Shiquo posted a series of videos suggesting that all her stock had been confiscated, forcing her to start over.
In one of the clips, she described the experience as a painful lesson for business owners dealing in products that may infringe on intellectual property rights.
“Every piece of shoe was taken because they were counterfeit. There was a big problem. We have to start again, relearn, rebuild and do it again,” she said.
She also warned other traders about the risks associated with selling products that imitate established brands.
At the same time, Shiquo used the incident to reflect on the importance of building local brands, arguing that entrepreneurs should focus on creating their own products instead of relying on the popularity of international labels.
“We can make our own brands and grow them slowly,” she said, citing global giants such as Nike and Adidas as examples of companies that started from scratch before becoming household names.
Her claims sparked a heated online debate, with many Kenyans questioning why replica products are widely available in local markets if authorities later consider them illegal. Others argued that traders often operate in a grey area where counterfeit goods are openly sold despite periodic crackdowns.
The dispute has once again put a spotlight on Nairobi’s bustling trade in imitation products, particularly in commercial hubs such as Eastleigh, Kamukunji and the Central Business District, where demand for cheaper alternatives to premium brands remains strong.
For now, however, the Anti-Counterfeit Authority maintains that no raid took place at Shiquo Hii Style’s store, setting up a stark contradiction between the influencer’s public account and the regulator’s version of events.
On the morning of June 3, 2026, two men who spent years fetching briefcases and drafting memos for one of Kenya’s most colourful politicians took their seats at the top of a publicly listed company.
Joshua Gakinya, once the personal assistant to former Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria, was appointed Independent Non-Executive Director of Africa Mega Agricorp PLC.
Phillip Ndabari Muriuki, who served as Kuria’s senior adviser when he ran the Ministry of Public Service, Performance and Delivery Management, was installed as the company’s new Chairman.
Their ascent to the board of a Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm would be unremarkable if not for what preceded it: a corporate acquisition that critics argue was orchestrated from within government, a UAE-registered firm that shares a postal address with Kuria himself, and a pattern of state contracts flowing to entities within the same web of relationships. The appointments complete a circle that has been drawing slowly tighter since 2023.
The two men who once carried Kuria’s briefcases now carry the chairmanship and a directorship at a KSh 1.4 billion agribusiness empire.
FROM KENYA ORCHARDS TO AMAC: THE ARCHITECTURE OF A TAKEOVER
Africa Mega Agricorp PLC traded on the NSE under the ticker AMAC did not always wear its current ambitions. For decades it was known as Kenya Orchards Limited, a modest Nakuru-based processor of fruit jams, tomato paste, canned beans, and condiments that had quietly lost its competitive edge. By 2024, its share price hovered around KSh 19.50, and the company’s future was the subject of a cautionary statement rather than investor enthusiasm.
That changed in June 2024 when Kenya Orchards issued a statement to the exchange disclosing that it had received a bid from a company called Africa Mega Agriculture Centre Limited to acquire an 84.42 per cent controlling stake. The purchase price, calculated on prevailing share values, was estimated at KSh 210 million.
The sellers were Westpac Holdings Limited, which held 34.28 per cent, alongside three individual shareholders: Thakarshi Keshav Patel at 33.61 per cent, his son Vipul Thakarshi Patel at 14.89 per cent, and Hansa Dinesh Chandra Shah at 1.65 per cent. The transaction was conducted as a private sale and involved asset transfers to settle outstanding dues owed by the company to its outgoing shareholders.
Shareholder approval was secured at an extraordinary general meeting in August 2024.
A certificate of change of name was issued by the Registrar of Companies on December 16, 2024, and by early 2025, Kenya Orchards had formally disappeared from the exchange, replaced by Africa Mega Agricorp PLC.
Today the company trades at around KSh 111 to KSh 115 per share, giving it a market capitalisation approaching KSh 1.43 billion a near-600 per cent appreciation from the price at which its controlling stake changed hands.
THE INVESTAFRICA THREAD: A UAE ENTITY, A SHARED ADDRESS, A DENIED CONNECTION
The story of who actually orchestrated the Kenya Orchards acquisition begins not at Nakuru but in Dubai. Africa Mega Agriculture Centre Limited, the vehicle that purchased the controlling stake, was incorporated on November 24, 2023, by InvestAfrica-FZCO a firm registered in the United Arab Emirates whose beneficial ownership has been the subject of sustained controversy since 2022.
InvestAfrica-FZCO first surfaced in Kenyan public discourse in 2023 when it acquired a 35 per cent stake in Eveready East Africa from the family of the late industrialist Naushad Merali.
That transaction, like the Kenya Orchards deal that followed, was structured as a private sale with no obligation extended to minority shareholders and no intention to delist.
The structural similarities between the two transactions same acquirer network, same approach, same NSE disclosure template were not lost on market analysts.
What elevated InvestAfrica-FZCO from an anonymous UAE investor to a subject of parliamentary and press scrutiny was a single detail revealed by auctioneers in March 2025: a postal address shared by InvestAfrica-FZCO and Moses Kuria himself.
An advertisement published by Garam Investments Limited in connection with the intended auction of Kuria’s properties at Juja and Ruaka disclosed the shared address, setting off a chain of corporate archaeology.
The trail did not end there. InvestAfrica-FZCO is listed as the sole beneficial owner of Emerging Capital Holdings, which in turn owns Smith and Gold Productions Limited. Smith and Gold was, until 2023, listed in corporate filings with Kuria himself as beneficial owner.
When ownership of Smith and Gold shifted to InvestAfrica-FZCO, Kuria’s brother Alois Kinyanjui remained a stakeholder in the firm. Smith and Gold had previously won a KSh 259 million contract for the construction of Karatu Stadium in Kiambu County work that a parliamentary report in 2020 found had not been completed to the value of the funds disbursed, with KSh 102 million released despite inadequate delivery.
Until 2023, Kuria was named as Smith and Gold’s beneficial owner. Ownership then shifted to InvestAfrica-FZCO. His brother remained inside the structure.
THE EDIBLE OILS SCANDAL: STATE POWER, DUBAI SUBSIDIARIES, AND QUESTIONABLE CONTRACTS
The edible oils episode provides the most documented intersection between Moses Kuria’s tenure as a Cabinet Secretary and the entities that orbit InvestAfrica-FZCO.
When Kuria served as Cabinet Secretary for Trade and Industrialisation before his subsequent move to the Public Service ministry his ministry oversaw a government programme to import 125,000 metric tonnes of cooking oil through the Kenya National Trading Corporation to address rising consumer prices.
Among the companies awarded local purchase orders under that programme was Shehena Trading Commodity Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of InvestAfrica-FZCO.
Shehena secured a KSh 1.33 billion contract to supply edible oils to KNTC. Investigators and parliamentary inquiries later confirmed that Wilfred Saroni, listed as CEO of the InvestAfrica-FZCO enterprise, was described in official documents as closely associated with the then Trade CS.
The same audits revealed that KNTC did not pay customs duty of 35 per cent, import declaration fees of 3.5 per cent, or agricultural levies totalling 2 per cent on the consignments a combined tax exemption of 42.5 per cent that investigators calculated would generate a liability of nearly KSh 10 billion against the full programme.
The Kenya Bureau of Standards subsequently confirmed in a letter dated September 5, 2023, that the 125,000 metric tonnes of cooking oil imported was unfit for human consumption.
Kuria denied personal wrongdoing throughout, and has consistently maintained that he has no ownership of InvestAfrica-FZCO.
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations was among agencies that sought corporate registration details for Shehena and related firms.
THE APPOINTMENTS: NDABARI, GAKINYA, AND THE COMPLETION OF A CIRCLE
Effective June 3, 2026, Africa Mega Agricorp PLC made four simultaneous announcements: Phillip Ndabari Muriuki was appointed Chairman and Independent Non-Executive Director; James Watenga Kamau was appointed Executive Director; Joshua Gakinya was appointed Independent Non-Executive Director; and Abraham Ng’etich was named Acting Chief Executive Officer. The outgoing directors, Yebeltal Getachew and Michael Foley, resigned simultaneously.
Ndabari, the new Chairman, brings a professional biography that spans commercial banking, payment systems, and board oversight across Africa, the Middle East, and the Gulf Cooperation Council region — a career arc that mirrors Kuria’s own early trajectory through Standard Chartered and Al Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia. His appointment as the independent chair of a company controlled by an entity linked to Kuria raises questions the Capital Markets Authority has tools to examine.
Gakinya, the new non-executive director, operated as Kuria’s personal assistant during his ministerial career. His professional profile references entrepreneurial interests in agribusiness and technology.
The appointment of a former personal assistant as an independent director on the board of a company whose acquisition was engineered by an entity associated with the same employer is, at minimum, an unusual governance arrangement for an NSE-listed public company.
WESTPACK, DIGIFARM, AND THE AGRIBUSINESS AMBITION
Before InvestAfrica-FZCO structured the Kenya Orchards deal, Kuria’s own declared business interests extended into agriculture through a company called Westpack.
The firm signed an agreement with Safaricom’s DigiFarm platform to market green grams Ndengu grown by smallholder farmers in Kitui County, connecting them to downstream buyers through digital infrastructure.
The arrangement collapsed before delivering material results, but it demonstrated that Kuria had, even before his ministerial appointments, identified the nexus of smallholder agriculture, digital platforms, and market access as an area of commercial interest.
AMAC’s current positioning which it describes as a farm-to-global trade infrastructure company connecting smallholders in Kenya’s 47 counties to buyers in the Middle East, Europe, and beyond through technology and traceability mirrors precisely that thesis.
Whether the Westpack-DigiFarm venture was a precursor to the AMAC strategy, or merely a coincidence of strategic interest, is a question that the overlap of personnel and timing invites.
WHAT AMAC REPRESENTS: SIGNIFICANCE BEYOND THE CONTROVERSY
It would be a disservice to the millions of Kenyan smallholders who depend on agricultural value chains to reduce this story to its political dimension alone. Africa Mega Agricorp PLC operates in a sector that accounts for a significant share of Kenya’s GDP, employs the majority of its rural population, and generates substantial foreign exchange through exports of coffee, tea, avocados, cut flowers, and horticultural produce.
A well-governed, well-capitalised NSE-listed agribusiness with genuine reach across all 47 counties and real export infrastructure could provide price stability for farmers, reduce post-harvest losses, improve access to trade finance, and position Kenya as the dominant agro-processing hub in the East African region.
The company’s stated ambitions cold-chain logistics, digital marketplaces, warehouse receipt financing, ESG-compliant supply chains are the kind of structural interventions that Kenya’s agricultural sector genuinely requires. The question is not whether such a company should exist. It is whether the manner in which it came to exist, and the identity of those who now govern it, can withstand the scrutiny that public markets demand.
REGULATORY SILENCE AND THE DISCLOSURE QUESTION
Kenya’s Capital Markets Authority requires listed companies to observe the highest standards of corporate governance, including the independence of non-executive directors and full disclosure of related-party interests.
The CMA’s own rules on the independence of directors specifically require that an individual’s relationships with controlling shareholders be examined. The connection between AMAC’s new Chairman, its new non-executive director, and the man whose associate network acquired the controlling stake in the company is the kind of relationship that the CMA’s definitions of independence were designed to interrogate.
NSE-listed shares are held by pension funds, retail investors, unit trusts, and insurance companies institutions entrusted with the savings of ordinary Kenyans.
Those shareholders are entitled to know whether the persons declared to be independent directors truly are independent, and whether the company’s governance architecture protects minority shareholders or serves the interests of its controlling entities.
Two sitting Members of Parliament have found themselves at the center of a high-profile land fraud case after allegedly losing a combined Sh51 million in a failed attempt to acquire prime parcels in Nairobi’s affluent Karen suburb.
The case, now before the Milimani Law Courts, has not only exposed an alleged multimillion-shilling property scam but has also drawn public attention to the scale of investments some elected leaders are making in Kenya’s lucrative real estate market.
Nairobi businessman Abdiwahab Sheikh Abdi was charged with four counts of obtaining money by false pretences after prosecutors accused him of collecting Sh93.5 million from two MPs and two private investors through purported land sales that allegedly turned out to be fraudulent.
According to court documents, Navakholo MP Emmanuel Wangwe allegedly paid Sh26 million for a parcel identified as LR No. 13873/3, while Ikolomani MP Bernard Masaka Shinali is said to have paid Sh25 million for LR No. 13873/9. Prosecutors claim the accused falsely represented that he had the authority and ability to transfer ownership of the properties.
The revelations have thrust the legislators into an uncomfortable spotlight. While there is no suggestion that either MP committed any offence, the court proceedings have publicly exposed the scale of funds they were prepared to commit to property acquisitions in one of Nairobi’s most exclusive neighbourhoods.
Karen remains among Kenya’s most expensive residential zones, with land prices often running into tens of millions of shillings per acre. The amounts cited in court have inevitably sparked public discussion about wealth, investments and financial disclosures among public officials, even as the MPs themselves are listed as complainants in the case.
Abdiwahab Sheikh Abdi at the Milimani Law Courts on June 9, 2026 where he was charged with defrauding two MPs.
The alleged fraud extended beyond the politicians. Businessman Ben Kiptoo Ego reportedly lost Sh26.5 million in a transaction involving LR No. 13873/2, while entrepreneur Abdikadir Ali Ibrahim allegedly paid Sh16 million for LR No. 13873/11.
Prosecutors maintain that all four complainants were persuaded to part with money after being led to believe that the accused could legally transfer ownership of the properties. Investigators say those representations were false.
The case adds to a growing list of multimillion-shilling land disputes and fraud allegations that continue to plague Kenya’s property sector. Despite digitisation efforts and reforms at the Ministry of Lands, fraudulent transactions involving forged titles, double allocations and unauthorised sales remain a persistent threat to investors.
Appearing before Principal Magistrate Paul Mutai, Abdi denied all charges. He was released on a bond of Sh2 million or an alternative cash bail of Sh500,000 after the prosecution indicated it had no objection to his release.
The case will be mentioned in two weeks for further directions.
As the criminal proceedings unfold, attention is likely to remain fixed not only on the allegations against the businessman but also on what the case reveals about the high-stakes property deals being pursued by some of Kenya’s political elite.
On the morning of Tuesday, June 3, 2026, Senior Counsel Nelson Havi took to X, formerly Twitter, and ignited what may prove to be Kenya’s most consequential judicial corruption disclosure in a generation.
His post, terse and loaded with implication, directed its fire at two anonymous judges one sitting at the Supreme Court, another at the High Court whom he and fellow Senior Counsel Philip Murgor had, in a closed-door meeting with Chief Justice Martha Koome, identified as shareholders in the very legal enterprise driving the Sh10 billion enforcement proceedings against the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company.
The case at the centre of this firestorm pits a formally dissolved and bankrupt Spanish company, Instalaciones Inabensa S.A., against a State utility whose 17 bank accounts have been frozen, whose operations have been thrown into paralysis, and whose taxpayers face the unthinkable prospect of paying the same debt up to three times.
That disclosure, coming from two of Kenya’s most credentialed and battle-hardened senior counsel, cannot be dismissed as idle provocation.
Both Havi and Ahmednasir the latter having popularised the term “JurisPesa” as legal shorthand for judicial bribery have for years staked their professional reputations and, in Ahmednasir’s case, their right to appear before the Supreme Court, on the campaign to expose corruption within the judiciary.
They have paid a price for that campaign. What they have now told the Chief Justice in a face-to-face meeting goes beyond rhetoric. It names a pattern. It identifies beneficiaries. It demands a response.
Kenya Insights has reviewed the full paper trail of the KETRACO-Inabensa litigation, spanning seven years and four court levels, and can confirm that the scandal is real, its dimensions are extraordinary, and the fingerprints of institutional manipulation are visible at multiple points in the chain. What follows is a full accounting.
“It is an open secret in legal circles that this case against KETRACO is owned by judges. The majority shareholder is a Supreme Court judge.” — SC Ahmednasir Abdullahi
THE GHOST COMPANY AND THE BALLOONING DEBT
Instalaciones Inabensa S.A. was a subsidiary of Abengoa, the Spanish engineering and energy conglomerate that became one of Spain’s most spectacular corporate collapses. Inabensa specialised in transmission and distribution infrastructure, and in April 2013, following a competitive tender process, it was awarded two engineering, procurement and construction contracts by KETRACO for the 400kV Lessos–Tororo transmission line connecting Kenya to Uganda, and for the extension of the Lessos substation. The combined contract value was approximately Sh4.5 billion, part-financed through an African Development Bank loan.
Within three years, the relationship had collapsed. Inabensa suspended works on April 12, 2016, citing KETRACO’s failure to settle multiple outstanding invoices. KETRACO responded on April 25, 2016, with a termination notice of its own, alleging poor performance and failure to mobilise. The project a critical corridor for regional electricity trade between Kenya and Uganda remained incomplete. It is still incomplete today.
The Lessos–Tororo line, intended to facilitate power exchange between the two countries, stands as a monument to contractual breakdown and the decade of litigation that followed.
An arbitral tribunal convened under the rules of the contract rendered its award on July 30, 2019. It found in favour of Inabensa: KETRACO had breached the contract by failing to pay invoices and by unlawfully terminating the agreement. The award was for more than €30.8 million approximately Sh4.6 billion at the time plus compounding interest and legal costs. KETRACO challenged the award at the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. It lost at every single level.
By February 2023, having exhausted every available avenue, KETRACO withdrew its Supreme Court petition. The three-judge bench of Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko ordered KETRACO to bear the costs of the appeal.
By the time of the Supreme Court’s final determination, compounding interest had swollen the original award to over €62.6 million more than Sh10 billion at current exchange rates. That debt is enforceable. The 2019 arbitral award was adopted as a judgment of the High Court on February 12, 2021. It is, in Kenyan law, final.
But the entity attempting to collect that Sh10 billion no longer exists.
A COMPANY DECLARED DEAD IN MADRID
The Attorney General’s office has confirmed, in a confidential advisory reviewed by Kenya Insights, that Instalaciones Inabensa S.A. was declared bankrupt in Spain a mere month after the Supreme Court’s October 2022 ruling. It was subsequently dissolved. Its assets — including its entire portfolio of overseas claims — were absorbed into insolvency proceedings administered by Ernst and Young Abogados, the court-appointed insolvency manager. Some of its assets were tipped for sale to a Spanish company called Cox Energy. Inabensa, as a legal person capable of entering contracts, initiating proceedings, or receiving payment, ceased to exist under Spanish law.
This fact was unknown to Kenyan judges and lawyers at the time they were adjudicating KETRACO’s challenge to the award. It is a damningly relevant fact, and its concealment whether deliberate or inadvertent raises questions that investigators must now pursue.
On July 28, 2023, what the Attorney General describes as a “Deed of Subrogation” was executed, purporting to transfer Inabensa’s rights under the Kenyan decree to a separate Spanish entity: C.A. Infraestructuras T & I SLU.
This entity has never constructed a single metre of transmission line in Kenya.
It was not a party to the original 2013 contracts. It has no legal presence in Kenya beyond the claim it has filed. Yet it is now pursuing KETRACO’s wind-up before the Kenyan courts, with an insolvency petition filed in May 2024 and scheduled for hearing in July 2026.
The result of this labyrinthine structure is, as the Attorney General has warned in the starkest possible terms, that Kenya could end up paying Sh30 billion. Three separate entities now claim entitlement to the same Sh10 billion award: the dissolved Inabensa, still pursuing garnishee proceedings; C.A. Infraestructuras T & I SLU, which claims to hold the assigned rights; and the insolvency estate managed by Ernst and Young, which the AG warns could assert rights over the money on behalf of creditors. No Kenyan court has, to date, recognised the foreign insolvency proceedings, and under Kenya’s Insolvency Act, no foreign entity may enforce insolvency-related rights in Kenya without that prior judicial recognition.
The Attorney General warns Kenya could pay Sh30 billion to three separate entities for the same Sh10 billion debt to a company Spain has formally dissolved.
SEVENTEEN ACCOUNTS FROZEN, A NATION’S GRID AT RISK
On December 11, 2025, High Court Judge Peter Mulwa issued garnishee orders nisi freezing 17 of KETRACO’s bank accounts across NCBA Bank, Standard Chartered Kenya, Co-operative Bank of Kenya, Citibank N.A. Kenya, and KCB Bank Kenya. The orders allowed Inabensa the dissolved company to pursue enforcement directly from KETRACO’s operational funds.
The consequences were immediate and potentially catastrophic. KETRACO, a fully State-owned entity responsible for managing Kenya’s high-voltage national transmission grid, told the courts in unmistakable terms that the freeze had locked it out of funds needed to service loans, pay salaries, procure grid stability inputs, and carry out emergency maintenance of transmission infrastructure. “The freeze has heightened the risk of nationwide power blackouts,” KETRACO’s legal team warned in submissions, “because the utility does not have access to cash for repairs and maintenance.” The magnitude of the award, it added, “far outstrips the applicant’s financial capacity and asset base, hence its immediate enforcement will bring the applicant’s activities to an abrupt halt.”
KETRACO appealed to the Court of Appeal. The three-judge appellate bench refused to grant a stay. In its dismissal ruling, the bench said KETRACO had not satisfied it that there was an arguable appeal. The path to KETRACO’s accounts was reopened for a company that the Spanish state has declared dead.
On March 24, 2026, Justice Peter Mulwa ordered KETRACO to provide a Sh1 billion bank guarantee as a condition for unfreezing the accounts — in effect, compelling a State entity to pay a billion shillings into court as security for a debt owed to a dissolved foreign company. That billion shillings represents public funds. Taxpayer money. Gone.
THE HAVI DISCLOSURE: JUDGES AS SHAREHOLDERS
It is against this backdrop of cascading legal losses, a frozen national utility, and a debt swelling by the day, that the disclosure made by Nelson Havi SC takes on its full and alarming significance.
On February 3, 2026, Chief Justice Martha Koome convened what her office described as a “high-level consultative meeting” at the Judiciary headquarters. Attendees included Senior Counsel Philip Murgor, the chairman of the Senior Counsel Bar; Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi; Senior Counsel Nelson Havi; and the former Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo. The stated agenda was systemic corruption in the judiciary and barriers to justice delivery.
What was disclosed at that meeting, according to Havi’s June 9 post on X, was specific, targeted, and damning.
Havi wrote that he and Murgor had disclosed to Chief Justice Koome the identities of “two mikoras” Swahili slang for corrupt beneficiaries connected to the KETRACO case: a Supreme Court judge who is the majority shareholder in the enterprise driving the litigation, and a High Court judge who is a major shareholder. He pointedly directed the Attorney General and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to act.
Within hours, Ahmednasir Abdullahi had amplified the disclosure on the same platform, confirming that it “is an open secret in legal circles that this case against KETRACO is owned by judges.” He identified one as a Supreme Court judge and another as a High Court judge. He tagged Nelson Havi and the Law Society of Kenya.
These are not anonymous trolls. These are Senior Counsel of Kenya among the highest-ranked members of the Kenyan Bar who have made these disclosures in a meeting with the Chief Justice herself, and then publicly reaffirmed them in their own names. Both men have track records of accuracy in their judicial corruption allegations. Both have paid institutional prices for their outspokenness. The credibility threshold here is not in question.
THE CJ’S SILENCE AND THE BAR’S REVOLT
What has Chief Justice Koome done with these disclosures? The question is not rhetorical. At the February meeting, she invited the senior counsel to share exactly what they shared. She acknowledged the agenda of judicial corruption. She accepted the names. She then, according to what the Senior Counsel Bar has said publicly, failed to involve the Judicial Service Commission the only constitutional body with the power to investigate and remove judges in the subsequent follow-up processes.
By late May 2026, the Senior Counsel Bar had had enough. When the CJ convened a follow-up consultative meeting on May 29, the Bar boycotted it. Murgor, writing to the Chief Justice on May 26, was unambiguous: “The requested agenda items cannot be discussed in the absence of the JSC.” The Senior Counsel Bar declared it would not cooperate with the Chief Justice until meaningful action was taken against the corruption allegations. The meeting proceeded without them.
This is a remarkable breakdown. Kenya’s most senior lawyers, men and women who have access to the most sensitive information about how cases are manipulated in Kenyan courts, are refusing to participate in a process that excludes the investigative body they trust to act on what they know. Their withdrawal is itself a disclosure. It says, in the plainest institutional language, that the Chief Justice is not acting on what she has been told.
The EACC’s own National Gender and Corruption Survey 2025 found that magistrates received the highest average bribes of any public official in Kenya, at approximately Sh164,367 per transaction. The JSC’s own 2024/25 Annual Report recorded 214 petitions against judges under consideration during the reporting period, including 68 relating to alleged bribery and breaches of the Code of Conduct. The institutional data confirms the systemic picture the senior counsel are painting. Yet the JSC has issued no statement on the KETRACO judges. The DCI has announced no investigation. The AG has filed no challenge on the basis of judicial conflict of interest.
Kenya’s Senior Counsel Bar has boycotted CJ Koome’s anti-corruption forum, declaring it meaningless without JSC participation. The judges named in the KETRACO case remain on the bench.
THE PATTERN: JURISPESA AT SCALE
The allegations against the KETRACO judges do not exist in a vacuum. They form part of a documented and widening pattern of judicial corruption in Kenya that has been acknowledged, investigated, and prosecuted — but never decisively broken.
In March 2026, barely three months before the KETRACO disclosure exploded, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission arrested former High Court judge Joseph Mutava and lawyer Kimani Wachira on allegations of soliciting a bribe of USD 80,000 approximately Sh10.4 million to influence the outcome of a commercial dispute involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju. Mutava, who had previously been removed from the bench by tribunal in 2016 for gross misconduct and whose removal was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019, had apparently continued to operate as a fixer in legal circles.
The EACC’s 2026 arrest was his second encounter with the anti-corruption agency.
Ahmednasir, whose ban from the Supreme Court — imposed by Chief Justice Koome in January 2024 and challenged by both his law firm and the LSK in the High Court was the judiciary’s institutional response to his anti-corruption campaign, has documented for years what he calls “JurisPesa”: the industrial-scale monetisation of judicial outcomes in Kenya’s commercial courts. His accusations have been called scandalous by the judiciary and courageous by civil society. The Supreme Court’s own move to ban him for scandalising the bench drew a counter-petition from the LSK, which argued the ban was unconstitutional and violated natural justice. In April 2026, Ahmednasir’s firm and the Supreme Court judges finally reached a settlement and the ban was effectively resolved.
The pattern that emerges from this accumulation of evidence Mutava’s bribery, the 214 active JSC petitions, the EACC’s own corruption survey data, and now the KETRACO shareholders disclosure is not one of isolated bad actors. It is one of a judiciary in which the monetisation of justice has become normalised within specific networks, and in which the institutional mechanisms for accountability have been consistently slower to act than the crimes they are meant to address.
THE LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY THE COURTS ARE IGNORING
Beyond the corruption allegations, there is a pure legal question at the heart of the KETRACO case that the courts at every level appear to have either ignored or failed to grapple with: how can a company that no longer legally exists enforce a judgment?
The Attorney General’s office has been explicit on this point. Under Kenya’s Insolvency Act, foreign insolvency proceedings must be recognised by a Kenyan court before any enforcement action can be taken in Kenya. That recognition has not been sought, much less granted. Yet Inabensa’s garnishee proceedings brought in the name of a dissolved company have been upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The High Court’s December 11, 2025 garnishee orders were issued by Justice Peter Mulwa in favour of Instalaciones Inabensa. The Attorney General had warned the court, in written submissions, that Inabensa was dissolved. The court proceeded anyway. The Court of Appeal’s three-judge bench then declined to halt execution, finding that KETRACO had not demonstrated an arguable appeal. The combined effect of these two rulings is that a ghost company one that the Spanish state has formally struck from legal existence has been handed the keys to a Kenyan State utility’s bank accounts.
If the judges who have facilitated this outcome are, as Havi and Ahmednasir allege, themselves shareholders in the entity standing behind these proceedings, then what Kenya is witnessing is not merely judicial incompetence or legal complexity. It is a conspiracy to defraud the State, executed through the instruments of the State’s own justice system. The corruption is not the icing on the scandal. It is the engine of it.
WHAT THE DCI, THE AG, AND THE JSC MUST DO NOW
The disclosures made by Havi and Ahmednasir are specific enough to constitute actionable intelligence for multiple investigative institutions. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations has the legal authority and the forensic capability to establish beneficial ownership structures. It must immediately open a formal investigation into the shareholding of every entity that has appeared in the KETRACO-Inabensa litigation as a claimant, agent, or representative, and cross-reference those shareholdings against the judiciary’s register of financial interests.
The Attorney General’s office, which has already produced a confidential brief identifying the core legal absurdities in this case, must file a formal intervention in the current proceedings challenging the capacity of a dissolved company to enforce a Kenyan judgment. That intervention must also seek the vacation of all garnishee orders granted to Inabensa pending the resolution of the capacity question.
The Judicial Service Commission must open disciplinary proceedings against the judges named to Chief Justice Koome in the February meeting. The JSC’s own records show 68 pending petitions alleging bribery and Code of Conduct breaches. Adding the two KETRACO judges to that active file is a constitutional obligation. Failure to do so will constitute a further breach of the JSC’s mandate and will validate every allegation that the Commission shields rather than disciplines corrupt judges.
Chief Justice Koome, having received the names of the two judges in her meeting with Havi and Murgor, bears personal accountability for what happens next. She cannot claim ignorance. She cannot outsource this to a consultative process that excludes the JSC. The Senior Counsel Bar has told her exactly what conditions are necessary for meaningful action. Those conditions are not onerous. They are constitutional.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST
KETRACO is not a private company. It is the backbone of Kenya’s national power transmission infrastructure. Its 17 frozen accounts are not the private property of shareholders who can absorb a loss. They are public funds, budget allocations, development finance. The Sh10 billion at stake is money that could fund the transmission lines Kenya needs to industrialise, to connect rural communities to the grid, to honour its regional energy trade obligations.
The prospect of paying Sh30 billion three times the same debt, to three entities none of which has a clean legal title to the money is not a legal technicality. It is a national emergency. It is the kind of State loss that defines administrations, destroys reputations, and, when it is the product of deliberate manipulation by those entrusted to adjudicate it, constitutes a crime.
Two judges are named. Their names are known to the Chief Justice. Their names are known to the Attorney General. Their names are known to the Senior Counsel Bar. Their names will, in time, become known to the public. The question that Kenya now puts to its institutions of accountability is simple: will those institutions act before the money is gone, or after?
In a ruling that will reverberate across Kenya’s constitutional landscape for years to come, the High Court on Monday delivered a verdict as contradictory as the political theatre that spawned it: Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment stands, his removal from the office of Deputy President is permanent and lawful, yet the Senate that tried and convicted him has been ordered to pay him Sh50 million for violating his constitutional rights in the very process it used to throw him out.
The three-judge bench of Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima and Fridah Mugambi dismissed consolidated petitions in which Gachagua had challenged his October 2024 impeachment, ruling that both the National Assembly and the Senate had acted within the bounds of the Constitution and that the public participation process had satisfied the requisite constitutional threshold. The court declined, entirely, to interrogate whether the charges against Gachagua were meritorious, holding that the question of whether he deserved to be removed is one reserved exclusively for Parliament and is non-justiciable.
What the court did not let go of was the Senate’s treatment of Gachagua during the trial itself. Delivering the bench’s finding on the right to a fair hearing, Justice Mugambi drew a sharp and damning distinction between a litigant who is heard and then outvoted, and one who is actively prevented from completing his defence. Gachagua, she held, was the latter. The Senate’s refusal to grant an adjournment he had sought during proceedings amounted to a violation of Article 50 of the Constitution, a provision so fundamental that it is listed among the non-derogable rights under Article 25, rights that cannot be suspended even during a state of emergency.
“This is not a case of a party who was heard and then outvoted. It was a case of a party who was prevented from completing his hearing.” Justice Fridah Mugambi
The violation was real. The remedy, however, stopped far short of what Gachagua had hoped for. The court ruled that acknowledging the breach warranted constitutional compensation but could not, and would not, unwind the impeachment itself. The bench anchored this position on two pillars: the finality clause in Article 145(7) of the Constitution and the practical constitutional absurdity of reinstating Gachagua when his successor, Kithure Kindiki, had already been lawfully nominated, approved and sworn in. To nullify the impeachment at this stage, the judges reasoned, would produce the constitutionally intolerable prospect of two sitting Deputy Presidents, an outcome the Constitution could not conceivably be taken to have contemplated.
Gachagua during an appearance in court.
Sh50 Million: A Constitutional Rebuke That Leaves Gachagua on the Outside
The court awarded Gachagua constitutional damages of Sh50 million, payable by the Senate, framing the sum not merely as compensation but as a deterrent signal to Parliament that future impeachment proceedings must scrupulously observe due process. The award is intended, the bench stated, to vindicate the Constitution, restore the dignity of the affected party and serve notice that procedural violations in high-stakes parliamentary hearings carry a legal price.
It is a remarkable outcome. The Senate tried Gachagua, denied him an adjournment he was entitled to, upheld his impeachment, and has now been ordered by a court to reach into public coffers and pay the man it convicted. The Sh50 million will not buy back the office. It will not restore the motorcade, the security detail or the ceremonial title. But it places on record, in black judicial ink, that Kenya’s upper house conducted a constitutionally flawed trial and that its refusal to grant Gachagua breathing room during proceedings was not merely a procedural oversight but a breach of a fundamental right.
“The award is intended as a constitutional remedy to vindicate the Constitution, restore the dignity of the affected party and serve as a deterrent against future violations of similar nature in parliamentary proceedings.”
On Bias and Predetermination: The Court Was Unsparing
Gachagua’s legal team had argued strenuously that the impeachment was a coordinated scheme, that the Speaker and members of both houses had predetermined the outcome and that political bias had corrupted the proceedings from the outset. Justice Ogola, delivering the bench’s findings on this issue, was dismissive of the claims in terms that left little ambiguity about the evidentiary threshold the petitioners had failed to meet.
The allegations of bias, predetermination and conflict of interest advanced against the Speakers, members of Parliament and senators, Ogola held, amounted to nothing more than bare and unsubstantiated assertions grounded in political inference and suspicion rather than objective evidence. The mere fact that legislators had supported or opposed the impeachment was not, standing alone, capable of establishing constitutional bias. Impeachment, the court noted, is an inherently political-constitutional process. Lawmakers are not expected to approach it as blank slates devoid of political opinion. What the Constitution demands is not the absence of political inclination but a genuine openness to considering the evidence and discharging constitutional responsibilities in good faith.
The court further confirmed its own jurisdiction in unambiguous terms, holding that impeachment proceedings are justiciable and subject to judicial scrutiny wherever constitutional violations are alleged. The separation of powers, Justice Ogola stated, does not mean separation from the Constitution. Courts may not substitute Parliament’s political judgment with their own assessment of the gravity of charges, but they can and must police the process for constitutional compliance.
Public Participation: The Door Was Opened Widely
One of the more contested fronts in the litigation was the adequacy of the public participation process conducted by the National Assembly before the impeachment vote. Gachagua had argued that the exercise was a choreographed facade, that logistics had failed in material ways across the country and that his own response to the charges had not been made publicly available during the participation window, rendering the process defective.
The court found otherwise. The bench acknowledged that logistical and operational challenges will inevitably arise in any large-scale, nationally coordinated exercise conducted under time pressure. Such localised deficiencies, it held, do not invalidate an otherwise lawful process. The evidence showed that the process was conducted openly and in good faith. The fact that Gachagua’s response to the charges was not circulated to the public during the participation window did not render the exercise constitutionally deficient because public participation in an impeachment process is, by design, functionally and substantively distinct from the adversarial hearing to which the respondent is entitled. It was never intended to be a mini trial of the charges.
The Senate, additionally, was not required to conduct its own separate and independent public participation process. The court similarly rejected statistical anomaly claims relating to participation data, finding the figures mathematically sound and within acceptable limits.
Standing Orders, Timelines and the IEBC: All Arguments Dismissed
The petitioners had also assailed the constitutional validity of the Parliamentary Standing Orders governing impeachment timelines, particularly the seven-day framework in the National Assembly and the Senate’s self-imposed ten-day plenary arrangement. The court declined to declare either unconstitutional. On the seven-day framework, the bench held that the duration alone is not constitutionally determinative. What matters is whether Parliament took substantive steps within that period to discharge its constitutional obligations. It did. On the Senate’s ten-day framework, the court noted that neither the Constitution nor the Standing Orders prescribe a specific timeline for plenary proceedings. The Senate’s adoption of a ten-day arrangement was a self-imposed procedural choice. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that adopting such a timeline was itself a constitutional violation.
The court also dispensed with arguments relating to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. No clearance or involvement of the IEBC was constitutionally or legally required in the process of filling the office of Deputy President. The President and the National Assembly acted with expedition in discharging their obligations under Article 149 following the vacancy. Acting swiftly, the bench noted pointedly, is not evidence of predetermination. Compliance with a constitutional duty, performed promptly, cannot without more be construed as wrongdoing.
Kindiki’s Appointment: Open, Transparent and Constitutional
The nomination and approval of Kithure Kindiki as Gachagua’s successor was separately subjected to constitutional scrutiny. Justice Mugambi, delivering this segment of the verdict, held that the National Assembly proceedings were conducted in a fully open and transparent manner. The debate was televised, proceedings were recorded in Hansard, the press reported freely and members of Parliament were directly accountable to their constituents for how they voted. Not every parliamentary decision automatically triggers a requirement for structured public participation, particularly where the decision involves a vote within the Assembly exercising its constitutional mandate on a binary question. Public participation, the court observed with some tartness, would have added nothing of constitutional value to a binary vote of this character.
The verdict closes the principal judicial chapter of Kenya’s most politically explosive constitutional moment since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution. Gachagua’s impeachment stands confirmed. Kindiki’s tenure is judicially insulated. The Senate pays Sh50 million. And the Court of Appeal now awaits, with Gachagua’s legal team having signalled their intention to escalate the matter to the next tier of the judiciary.
“The separation of powers does not mean separation from the Constitution.” Justice Eric Ogola
What the Ruling Means
At its core, the judgment is a study in judicial restraint pushed to its constitutional limits. The bench found a real rights violation, named it, punished it financially and then refused to let the punishment undo the act it censured. The reasoning is rooted in constitutional pragmatism rather than strict remedial logic: the court feared the chaos of dual incumbency more than it was committed to the symmetry of having a breach followed by nullification.
The implications are significant. Parliament now knows it can impeach a sitting deputy president, violate his right to a fair hearing in the process and still have the impeachment survive judicial review provided the violation is not egregious enough to attract nullification rather than damages. The court has, in effect, created a constitutional category of a survivable fair hearing breach, one serious enough to cost the Senate Sh50 million but not serious enough to cost it the outcome it sought.
For Gachagua personally, the award is a pyrrhic vindication. The Sh50 million is a considerable sum by any measure but it is cold comfort against the backdrop of a removed, constitutionally confirmed and court-certified ouster. The political arithmetic of a return to power through the courts has now been permanently foreclosed at the High Court level. Whether the Court of Appeal will be persuaded to reach a different conclusion on the remedial question is the singular issue that will define the next phase of a legal battle that has already made Kenyan constitutional history.
Kenya’s former Chief Justice David Maraga has been arrested while protesting against, among other things, what activists are alleging is a plan to build a car park on protected land belonging to a wildlife sanctuary in the capital, Nairobi.
He was among a group of demonstrators who were marching along a road running close to the Nairobi National Park.
The 117-sq-km (45-sq-mile) site is a popular conservation area and tourist spot within Nairobi.
The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), which runs the park, is accused of giving a portion of the land to a neighbouring convention centre as well as planning to build a large new animal orphanage within the site. The KWS has vigorously defended its plans.
It says the relocated and expanded orphanage will improve animal welfare and veterinary training, as well as allow for a better visitor experience.
It will occupy an 89-acre site within the park – 0.31% of its total area, according to a KWS official quoted by the Star newspaper.
Social media videos show police breaking up Monday’s protest and detaining a group of demonstrators who were filmed sitting in the middle of a two-lane highway.
Maraga, dressed in the colours of his United Green Movement party, can be seen being helped into the back of a lorry as people around him shout: “Long live the park.”
The former chief justice, who hopes to run for president in the 2027 election, was arrested along with nine others. He has since been released but is refusing to leave the police station until the other activists have been freed.
The police have not released an official statement about the arrests.
Posting on X about the protest and his detention Maraga said he was held with “fellow patriotic Kenyans” who wanted to present a petition to KWS against the construction of a car park for 1,300 vehicles.
“Our national heritage and environment must be safeguarded from greed and unnecessary destruction without public participation,” he added.
The KWS has not commented on the allegation about the car park but said that the public had been consulted about the plan to constrict a new orphanage.
Human rights group Amnesty International has “strongly” condemned the arrests of “peaceful protesters” following what it called a “violent dispersal”.
“The use of force against citizens exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, expression, and public participation is unacceptable,” it said in a joint statement with environmental groups.
Signatories included Greenpeace Africa, Friends of Nairobi National Park and The Green Belt Movement.
Nairobi, June 8, 2026 — The government is seeking to transform the vast volumes of data generated through eCitizen and other state digital platforms into a new source of revenue, unveiling plans for a national marketplace where anonymised and aggregated public datasets would be sold to businesses, researchers, innovators and development organisations.
The proposal is contained in the draft National Data Governance Policy, which seeks to establish a National Data Governance and Emerging Technologies Council charged with overseeing the collection, management and commercialisation of government-held data.
Under the plan, the State aims to make at least 1,000 datasets available over the next five years through a centralised marketplace expected to cost about Sh396 million to develop and operate.
The datasets would be drawn from eCitizen and other government systems and could include trends in business registrations, demand for public services, passport and immigration applications, birth and death registrations, vehicle registrations, land transactions, agricultural production statistics and regional traffic patterns. Information from agencies such as the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics would also be incorporated.
Government officials argue that the initiative is part of a broader effort to treat data as a strategic national asset capable of driving innovation, investment and economic growth.
The policy maintains that personal information will not be sold. Officials say names, phone numbers, email addresses, national identity numbers and photographs will be excluded from the marketplace in compliance with the Data Protection Act. Instead, only anonymised and aggregated datasets would be licensed to users under pricing structures that are yet to be finalised. Some information may also be made available free of charge for research and public-interest purposes.
The government points to examples from other jurisdictions where public-sector data has become a significant economic resource. Policymakers argue that Kenya could position itself as a continental leader in the emerging data economy while creating new revenue streams without imposing additional taxes on citizens.
Yet the proposal arrives amid lingering questions about public trust in eCitizen itself.
Over the past several years, reports by the Auditor-General and investigations by parliamentary committees have raised concerns about the management of the platform. Audits uncovered irregular transactions, unexplained financial discrepancies, unauthorised accounts and weaknesses in oversight arrangements. The platform’s operational structure, particularly the involvement of private contractors, has repeatedly come under scrutiny from lawmakers.
Those concerns have resurfaced following the government’s proposal to commercialise data generated through the same system.
Many Kenyans reacting online have questioned whether the State should be selling insights derived from citizens’ interactions with government services when confidence in the platform remains fragile. Critics argue that millions of people have little choice but to use eCitizen for essential services ranging from tax payments and business registrations to education and healthcare transactions.
Some users have urged the government to prioritise strengthening cybersecurity, improving transparency and resolving accountability concerns before embarking on data monetisation.
Privacy advocates have also warned that anonymisation is not always foolproof. International experience has shown that individuals can sometimes be re-identified when multiple datasets are combined, particularly in cases involving small geographic regions or highly specific transaction patterns.
Such concerns are likely to place additional pressure on the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, which already faces the challenge of regulating an increasingly complex digital ecosystem.
The draft policy also promotes a “once-only” principle under which citizens would provide information to government a single time, allowing authorised agencies to access and share that data across systems. Supporters argue that the approach would improve efficiency and reduce duplication. Critics counter that it could increase risks by concentrating vast amounts of information within interconnected government databases.
Questions are also emerging about governance.
The proposed National Data Governance and Emerging Technologies Council would wield significant influence over decisions involving data access, pricing, licensing and approved users. Stakeholders are seeking clarity on how the body will be constituted, who will oversee its operations and what safeguards will exist to ensure transparency and public accountability.
The public participation window for the draft policy closed on June 5, with implementation expected to begin as early as July.
The proposal has reignited a broader debate about ownership and value in the digital age. While few dispute that government-held data can support innovation, improve planning and stimulate economic activity, critics argue that trust must come before commercialisation.
For many observers, the central question is not whether data has economic value, but whether the government has demonstrated sufficient transparency, accountability and technical safeguards to manage that value responsibly.
Until those concerns are addressed, the plan risks being viewed less as a bold digital transformation strategy and more as another attempt to extract revenue from a platform that millions of Kenyans are already required to use.
The government’s challenge now is to convince citizens that the data economy it seeks to build will serve the public interest rather than become another source of controversy in Kenya’s increasingly contested digital landscape.
This version is cleaner, more balanced, legally safer, and reads like a professional newspaper analysis while retaining the controversy and public-interest angle.
The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) has moved to clear confusion surrounding Kenya’s instant traffic fines system, insisting that motorists can still be fined for traffic violations despite ongoing court cases challenging parts of the programme.
The clarification comes after court orders issued by the Kiambu Law Courts triggered public debate over whether the government’s technology-driven enforcement system had been suspended.
NTSA Director General Nashon Kondiwa said the court orders only affect the Public Private Partnership (PPP) component that was expected to expand the country’s traffic surveillance network through the installation of additional enforcement cameras.
He explained that the Minor Traffic Offences Rules, which provide the legal framework for identifying and enforcing traffic offences through automated systems and police notices, remain fully operational.
“The Minor Traffic Offences Rules is being implemented. We have orders from Kiambu Law Courts directing us to keep records of payments and another order suspending the implementation of the PPP component,” Kondiwa said.
The authority stressed that the PPP programme and the Minor Traffic Offences Rules are separate matters, noting that no court has suspended the rules governing instant fines.
As a result, motorists continue to face penalties for offences detected through existing traffic enforcement systems. Cameras already installed by the Kenya National Highways Authority and the Kenya Urban Roads Authority remain active, while police officers continue issuing notices manually and through digital enforcement applications.
The clarification means drivers can still be cited for offences such as speeding, running red lights and lane indiscipline even as the court battle over the PPP arrangement continues.
The instant fines programme was introduced as part of a broader government effort to improve compliance with traffic laws and reduce road carnage by allowing motorists accused of minor traffic offences to pay prescribed penalties without undergoing lengthy court proceedings.
However, the programme has attracted legal challenges from motorists and civil society groups who have questioned aspects of its legality and implementation.
Kondiwa said NTSA is complying with court directives requiring it to maintain records of all payments collected under the system while the matter remains before the courts.
“The courts instructed NTSA to proceed but keep the payment records,” he said.
The case is scheduled to return to court for further directions on June 21.
The legal dispute has also disrupted plans to significantly expand the country’s automated enforcement infrastructure. Under the suspended PPP arrangement, the government had planned to install 1,000 additional traffic enforcement cameras within two years.
“The PPP rollout, which was to add 1,000 cameras in two years, is suspended. Any existing schedule will have to be adjusted until the court process is complete,” Kondiwa said.
Despite the setback, NTSA says it is pressing ahead with plans to integrate existing enforcement infrastructure operated by the Kenya National Highways Authority, the Kenya Urban Roads Authority and the National Police Service. The integration project is expected to be completed within six months.
President William Ruto has emerged as one of the strongest supporters of the instant fines system, arguing that tougher enforcement is necessary to curb reckless driving and reduce the number of lives lost on Kenyan roads.
While receiving a road safety report at State House Nairobi, the President directed authorities to implement fines that are difficult for offenders to ignore, saying the traditional enforcement model has been weakened by corruption and lengthy court processes that often allow offenders to escape accountability.
Ruto has also pushed for wider use of technology, including CCTV surveillance and speed-monitoring cameras, arguing that automated systems provide objective evidence while reducing opportunities for bribery.
Government officials maintain that money collected through instant fines is remitted to the Exchequer and does not form part of NTSA’s revenue.
“These are Exchequer revenues, not NTSA revenue. NTSA’s focus and mandate is road safety. The National Treasury would be better placed to provide revenue projections,” Kondiwa said.
For now, motorists hoping the court case had halted the instant fines regime have been put on notice. NTSA says enforcement remains active across the country, with only the planned camera expansion programme temporarily stopped pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
The collapse of the 16-storey Manzil Towers building in Nairobi’s South C estate is rapidly emerging as one of the most consequential construction disaster prosecutions in Kenya’s history, with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) approving criminal charges against 37 individuals spanning developers, construction professionals and Nairobi County officials accused of enabling a project that ended in tragedy.
The January 2, 2026 collapse of the high-rise, which investigators say suffered a structural failure while under construction, sparked a multi-agency rescue operation that lasted several days. The disaster exposed longstanding concerns about Nairobi’s construction sector, where allegations of forged documents, illegal approvals, weak inspections and political protection have repeatedly surfaced following building failures.
Following months of investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the ODPP concluded there is sufficient evidence and a realistic prospect of conviction against dozens of suspects connected to the project’s approval, design, supervision and regulatory oversight.
At the centre of the prosecution are four individuals whom investigators consider key actors in the project itself.
Engineer Daniel Alphonse Odhiambo, architect Gideon Chege Mwangi, and developers Abdishakur Muse Mohamed and Yussuf Mohamed Yussuf will face manslaughter charges over the deaths linked to the collapse. The four are also accused of commencing the project without an Environmental Impact Assessment licence as required under environmental law.
The architect, Gideon Chege Mwangi, together with the two developers, additionally faces charges related to allegedly making false documents, while the two developers are also accused of uttering false documents.
Prosecutors contend that the alleged falsification of records formed part of a broader pattern of regulatory breaches that allowed the project to proceed despite concerns over compliance and approvals.
Category One: The Developers
According to the charge sheet, the developers directly linked to the project are:
Abdishakur Muse Mohamed
Yussuf Mohamed Yussuf
They face manslaughter charges, environmental compliance offences and document-related charges. Prosecutors allege they were among the principal beneficiaries and decision-makers behind the project.
Category Two: The Professionals
The professional team now facing prosecution includes:
Engineer Daniel Alphonse Odhiambo
Architect Gideon Chege Mwangi
The charges against them strike at the heart of professional accountability in Kenya’s construction industry. Engineers and architects are legally required to ensure structural integrity, adherence to approved plans and compliance with statutory requirements. Prosecutors argue that failures at this level directly contributed to the collapse.
Category Three: Nairobi County Planning and Regulatory Officials
The largest group consists of Nairobi County officials and technical officers accused of abuse of office and neglect of official duty.
Among those charged are:
Patrick Analo Akivaga
Christopher Naicca
Brenda Nyawana
Alfred Eshitera
Tom Achar
Philomena Wanjui
Wilfred Masinde
Sammy Shileche
Judy Gitau
Patrick Nutunga
Stephen Mwadere
Kimani Stanley
Michael Nderitu
Teresia Njoki
Simon Omondi
Ian Lewiso Gichero
Eunice Ngaho
Josephine Nater
Philip Mbithi
Francis Odhiambo
Grace Kiburo
Moses Nyogesa
Larry Ochieng
Davis Mutinda
Joseph Mutua
Dominic Mwtegi
Mackline Saitera
Martha Maina
Vivian Adongo
Jassan Njani
Eluid Lemaiyan
Bowen Kwambai Kanda
Abraham Choti Arati
Investigators believe this network of county officers either participated in, ignored or failed to stop irregular approvals, inspections and enforcement failures that allowed the project to continue despite alleged breaches of planning and building regulations.
The most prominent public official on the charge sheet is Patrick Analo Akivaga, the suspended Nairobi County Chief Officer for Urban Development and Planning.
Analo is accused of abuse of office and neglect of official duty in relation to the approval and oversight processes surrounding Manzil Towers. The charges come just days after investigators from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission raided his residence and reportedly recovered approximately KSh65 million in cash, alongside property documents and other assets, in a separate corruption investigation.
His inclusion in the Manzil Towers prosecution places one of Nairobi’s most powerful planning officials at the centre of a case that is increasingly being viewed as a test of whether Kenya can hold senior public officers accountable for deadly failures in the built environment.
The collapsed Manzil Towers in Nairobi’s South C estate.
The prosecutions have already triggered resistance from sections of the professional community.
The Architectural Association of Kenya has criticised the decision to charge members associated with the Nairobi City County Urban Planning Technical Committee, arguing that the committee merely provides technical advice and does not possess final approval authority. The association warned that criminal liability should be attached to those who exercised executive decision-making powers rather than advisory members.
The dispute highlights what is likely to become a major battleground during the court proceedings: whether responsibility rests primarily with the developers and professionals who designed and built the project, or with the public officials who approved, supervised and allowed it to continue.
Beyond the individual suspects, the Manzil Towers case has exposed what investigators describe as a chain of failures stretching from private developers to technical professionals and county regulators. Prosecutors appear to be pursuing a theory that the collapse was not the result of a single mistake but a systemic breakdown involving multiple actors across the construction approval ecosystem.
The prosecutions now place Kenya’s construction industry under an unprecedented spotlight. For years, residents have watched high-rise buildings mushroom across Nairobi amid recurring allegations of illegal floors, forged approvals, compromised inspections and weak enforcement. The Manzil Towers collapse has transformed those concerns into one of the largest criminal accountability cases ever mounted against officials and professionals involved in a single building project.
As the accused prepare to take plea, the case is expected to test not only the criminal liability of the 37 suspects but also the integrity of the systems that regulate Nairobi’s rapidly expanding skyline.
YEREVAN, Armenia, June 7, 2026 — Twenty years after being deported from Kenya following one of the most controversial political and security scandals of the Kibaki era, the man once known as Artur Margaryan has re-emerged on the international stage with ambitions of becoming Armenia’s next prime minister.
Artak Sargsyan, who recently disclosed that Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargsyan were pseudonyms used during his time in Kenya, is leading the newly formed Kochari National Revival and National Awakening Party in Armenia’s parliamentary elections. The vote is expected to determine the political composition of parliament, which will subsequently elect the country’s prime minister.
For many Kenyans, Sargsyan’s political bid revives memories of the mysterious Artur Brothers saga that dominated headlines in 2006 and raised questions about the influence of foreign nationals within the highest levels of government and the security establishment.
In recent interviews with Armenian media, Sargsyan has portrayed his years in Kenya as a success story. He claims that he and his brother played a significant role in transforming the Kenya Police Service into a more professional institution, improving security and creating conditions that attracted foreign investment. He has further claimed that he helped formulate ideas that contributed to South Sudan’s eventual independence and that he now wants to use the same experience to transform Armenia into what he calls the “Singapore of the Caucasus.”
Those claims have attracted attention in Kenya because they sharply contrast with the circumstances that made the Artur Brothers infamous.
The two Armenians first appeared in Kenya in the mid-2000s as businessmen with interests in real estate, automobiles and industrial projects. Despite being foreigners, they quickly acquired unusual access to government facilities and senior officials. They were frequently seen using government-plated vehicles and were reported to enjoy privileges normally reserved for senior state officials.
Their notoriety grew dramatically following the March 2006 raid on the Standard Group, one of Kenya’s largest media organizations. Armed security officers stormed the newspaper’s printing press and television station, destroying equipment and disrupting operations. The raid sparked national outrage and became one of the defining moments in Kenya’s struggle over media freedom.
Opposition leaders, including Raila Odinga, publicly accused the Artur Brothers of being mercenaries operating with the protection of powerful figures within government. The brothers denied the allegations and insisted they were legitimate businessmen.
The controversy deepened only months later when they became embroiled in a confrontation at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Reports indicated that the brothers entered restricted areas of the airport while armed and allegedly assaulted customs officials during a dispute involving imported surveillance equipment. The incident intensified public scrutiny and led to police investigations.
Authorities later raided properties associated with the brothers and recovered firearms, ammunition and government-linked assets. Although they were arrested, questions persisted over the treatment they received from state agencies and the apparent protection they enjoyed from influential figures.
A parliamentary investigation subsequently concluded that the brothers had connections and protection at senior levels of government. The committee questioned how foreign nationals had obtained extraordinary access to sensitive state institutions and suggested that attempts had been made to shield them from accountability.
Their names also surfaced in investigations surrounding Kenya’s historic 1.1-tonne cocaine seizure. Intelligence reports and investigative findings linked the brothers to networks that attracted the attention of anti-narcotics agencies, although neither was convicted of any drug-related offence. The allegations nevertheless became a permanent part of the public controversy surrounding them.
In his recent interviews, Sargsyan acknowledged his relationship with Winnie Wangui, who was widely reported at the time to have close links to former President Mwai Kibaki’s family circle. He said the relationship played a role in his move to Kenya and his interactions with senior political figures.
Artak Sargsyan alias Artur Margaryan
Now seeking political office in Armenia, Sargsyan presents himself as a nationalist reformer determined to strengthen the country’s economy and security. His party has advocated ambitious policies aimed at restoring Armenia’s regional influence and addressing national security concerns following years of geopolitical challenges in the South Caucasus.
Political analysts, however, view his chances of becoming prime minister as remote. Recent polling has placed his party well below the threshold required to emerge as a major force in parliament. Armenia’s political landscape remains dominated by larger and more established parties.
Even so, Sargsyan’s candidacy has attracted international attention because of the extraordinary path that brought him to Armenian politics.
For Kenyans who remember the events of 2006, the development represents a remarkable twist in a story that many believed had ended with the brothers’ deportation. Two decades after leaving Kenya amid allegations of political protection, security intrigue and links to criminal investigations, one of the central figures in that saga is now seeking to lead an entire nation.
Whether Armenian voters embrace his version of history remains uncertain. What is clear is that one of the most controversial figures ever to emerge from Kenya’s political underworld has found a new platform from which to pursue power.
Kenyan motorists have won a temporary reprieve after the High Court in Kerugoya suspended the rollout of the National Transport and Safety Authority’s (NTSA) second-generation Smart Driving Licence and automated instant traffic fines system, throwing into uncertainty a multi-billion-shilling transport technology project that was set to take effect from June 1.
In a ruling issued by Justice Dennis Kizito, the court halted the implementation of a 21-year Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreement between NTSA and Pesa Print Limited pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by the Road Safety Association of Kenya.
The conservatory orders stop the implementation of the project, which would have introduced upgraded smart driving licences, automated traffic surveillance cameras and an instant fines system linked directly to motorists’ licence profiles.
The court’s intervention came just days after NTSA announced plans to activate the new system, under which traffic offenders would automatically receive penalties through SMS notifications generated by a nationwide network of smart cameras.
Why the Court Stopped the Project
Court documents show that the petitioners raised concerns over the legality and transparency of the project, arguing that it failed to meet constitutional and statutory requirements governing public-private partnerships.
The Road Safety Association of Kenya further questioned the procurement process, claiming the contract was awarded through a flawed process despite previous concerns raised by the Office of the Auditor General regarding similar arrangements.
A major issue raised before the court concerns data privacy.
The petition argues that the project relies heavily on the collection and processing of motorists’ biometric data, which is classified as sensitive personal information under Kenya’s Data Protection Act, yet lacks adequate safeguards to protect motorists from potential misuse or unauthorized access.
Petitioners also contend that there was insufficient public participation and consultation with stakeholders before the project was rolled out nationwide.
The association additionally questioned whether NTSA obtained the necessary board approvals before entering into such a long-term and high-value contract.
What Happens to Current Smart Driving Licences?
Despite the suspension, motorists currently holding Smart Driving Licences will not be affected.
The court order only stops the rollout of the proposed second-generation licence that was scheduled to replace the current system beginning June 1.
Drivers can continue using their existing licences normally and are not required to apply for new cards or pay any additional fees.
Under the suspended arrangement, motorists would have paid Sh3,050 for the upgraded licence, which was designed to integrate seamlessly with the automated enforcement platform.
The current demerit points system also remains fully operational.
Drivers continue to start with 20 demerit points, which are reduced whenever traffic offences are committed. Those who accumulate excessive violations still risk licence suspension under the existing legal framework.
Instant Traffic Fines and Smart Cameras Put on Hold
Perhaps the most significant casualty of the court order is the automated instant fines system.
The project envisioned the installation of 1,000 smart traffic cameras across Kenya’s roads, including 700 fixed cameras and 300 mobile units.
The cameras were intended to automatically detect speeding, dangerous driving, lane violations and other traffic offences before generating instant fines linked directly to drivers’ profiles.
NTSA vehicles.
Under the proposed system, motorists would have received SMS alerts notifying them of violations and penalties without the need for direct interaction with traffic police officers.
With the court suspension now in force, the deployment of the cameras and supporting digital enforcement infrastructure has been halted until the case is heard and determined.
As a result, traffic enforcement will continue under the current framework, relying on existing NTSA systems and conventional policing methods.
What Motorists Need to Know
While the ruling has paused the new digital enforcement regime, it does not suspend any existing traffic laws or regulations.
Motorists are still required to comply with all road safety rules and continue monitoring their licence status and demerit points through NTSA platforms.
Any penalties, fines or licence suspensions already issued under the existing system remain valid and enforceable.
Similarly, drivers whose licences have been suspended must still undergo the required reinstatement procedures, including refresher training and retesting where necessary.
What Happens Next?
The case is scheduled for mention on June 21, 2026, when the court is expected to issue further directions after reviewing responses from NTSA, Pesa Print Limited and other parties involved.
The eventual outcome could significantly reshape Kenya’s plans for technology-driven traffic enforcement.
The court may allow the project to proceed as designed, order modifications to address privacy and procurement concerns, or require a fresh procurement process altogether.
For now, however, motorists will continue using the current Smart Driving Licence system, while the controversial Sh3,050 licence upgrade, automated traffic cameras and instant traffic fines programme remain firmly on hold.
The case is likely to become a landmark test of how far government agencies can go in deploying surveillance technology and automated enforcement systems without first satisfying constitutional requirements on procurement, public participation and protection of personal data.
The Pentagon has raised its counterintelligence threat assessment for Israel to the highest possible level on concerns about increasingly aggressive Israeli espionage targeting US officials, NBC News reported Friday.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued the new assessment in recent weeks, elevating Israel’s threat designation to “critical,” according to two current and one former US official cited by the network.
The move stems from concerns that Israel is making a particular effort to monitor senior US officials to gain insight into the Trump administration’s internal deliberations on Middle East conflicts, said officials.
Citing current officials, the report noted that the DIA assessment includes a seven-page document identifying specific incidents that heightened US concerns.
The heightened alert comes as President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have clashed on the war with Iran and Israeli military operations in Lebanon, including a reported tense call this past week.
Israel is keenly interested in whether Trump decides to resume major combat operations against Iran or pursue a negotiated end to the war, said current and former US officials and outside experts.
The Israeli Embassy in Washington denied the report, saying it is “completely false” that Israel conducts intelligence gathering on US government officials. The Pentagon declined to comment, while a White House official described the story as false.
Emily Harding, vice president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described Israel as having a “hyper-aggressive intelligence service.”
“They are exceedingly interested in what we are up to,” she added.
