Kenya Insights

Tag: Mohamed Jaffer

  • How Firm Linked To Mombasa Tycoon Jaffer Was Allowed To Import Fuel At Bloated Price And Set To Make Billions In Profits From Iranian War Crisis In Kenya

    How Firm Linked To Mombasa Tycoon Jaffer Was Allowed To Import Fuel At Bloated Price And Set To Make Billions In Profits From Iranian War Crisis In Kenya

    A petroleum company linked to Mombasa billionaire Mohammed Jaffer was quietly allowed to import expensive petrol at three times the normal cost in early March, positioning the politically connected businessman to reap billions in profits as Kenya grappled with the fallout from the US-Israel war with Iran.

    One Petroleum, a subsidiary of Jaffer’s Mbaraki Bulk Terminal Ltd, was among two local firms cleared by the Ministry of Energy to ship in 60 tonnes of petrol each outside the government-to-government deal that Kenya signed with three Gulf oil majors.

    The emergency imports came as the government scrambled to avert shortages tied to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz following Iranian drone attacks on oil facilities in the Gulf region.

    Industry sources revealed at the time that One Petroleum quoted a premium of $290 per tonne, equivalent to Sh37,691.3, which was three times the $84, or Sh10,917.48, quoted for a similar quantity of fuel under the G-to-G deal involving Saudi Aramco, Emirates National Oil Company, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

    The two cargo consignments imported outside the deal were to be part of those used in setting monthly pump prices from April 15, meaning Kenyan consumers were staring at a potential steep climb in fuel costs.

    “We are looking at an increase of at least Sh19 per litre on account of the premiums alone. Then we also add the global benchmark prices of fuel for the month of March which are higher than those from the month of February. The effect is going to be huge unless the government goes for a significant subsidy,” an industry source was quoted at the time.

    The empire of Mohammed Jaffer

    One Petroleum is a subsidiary of Mbaraki Bulk Terminal Ltd, a multi-petroleum products handling facility at the port of Mombasa that is partly owned by Jaffer, a businessman who has managed to secure safe ties with political regimes since the era of President Daniel arap Moi.

    Jaffer, who founded the MJ Group conglomerate now valued at over Sh16.3 billion, was previously a supporter of the late opposition leader Raila Odinga but has since made peace with President William Ruto, whom he had opposed in the last election.

    Company records show Jaffer’s family members, including Mojtaba Mohamed Jaffer, Ali Abbas Jaffer and Mohamed Husein Jaffer, are listed as directors of One Petroleum.

    Others are Solomon Esebwe Mwanjuma Ondego, Ali Salaah Balala, who serves as executive director, and Jonathan James Stokes. Nicholas Kokita is the company secretary.

    The Jaffers are also associated with Africa Gas and Oil Company, One Gas Ltd and Grain Bulk Handlers.

    Africa Gas is partly controlled by the billionaire, who also owns Grain Bulk Handlers, which imports the bulk of the liquefied petroleum gas consumed in Kenya and controls a significant transit market to neighbouring countries.

    A monopoly under threat

    The businessman has been able to maintain a monopoly not only in port operations but also in the LPG industry.

    His empire, however, came under threat from President Ruto’s decision to bring in a new entrant, Taifa Gas, owned by Tanzanian billionaire Rostam Aziz, who put up a 30,000-tonne gas plant at the Dongo Kundu Special Economic Zone in Likoni.

    Jaffer appeared to have made peace with the president and won another tender.

    His company, Grain Bulk Handlers, launched a new grain-handling and storage terminal in Embakasi, Nairobi, in April 2023, with President Ruto attending the event and expressing confidence that the terminal would play a vital role in addressing food security in the country.

    But the Jaffer empire has faced scrutiny before. In 2021, the Kenya Revenue Authority went to court accusing the family’s oil and gas firms of Sh68 million tax evasion.

    How the crisis created opportunity

    The emergency imports that allowed One Petroleum to charge inflated premiums were necessitated by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz following Iran’s drone attacks on oil facilities in Gulf countries.

    Iran attacked at least 18 merchant ships along the strategic waterway in response to US-Israel strikes against it, significantly hindering the movement of fuel from the oil-rich region.

    Nearly 25 per cent of the global liquefied natural gas and fuel passes across the Strait of Hormuz, enabling its movement from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea and beyond.

    Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain rely on the strait to deliver the vast majority of their oil exports.

    A vessel carrying 114.7 million litres of super from Emirates National Oil Company was unable to leave the Port of Jebel Ali in Dubai due to the closure, prompting the Ministry of Energy to float the idea of shipping fuel outside the G-to-G deal.

    Sources said a section of importers under the deal did not support the idea, citing the potential impact of steep premiums compared to the fixed ones under the government-backed arrangement.

    But the ministry went ahead and cleared One Petroleum and Oryx Energies to ship in the combined 120 tonnes of petrol.

    One Petroleum discharged its cargo, while that for Oryx arrived later.

    The G-to-G deal under the spotlight

    The G-to-G deal, which was designed to address dollar shortages and stabilise fuel supply through six-month credit arrangements backed by Kenyan bank letters of credit, has been a centre of controversy since its inception in March 2023.

    The deal involves Gulf firms Saudi Aramco, Emirates National Oil Co, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Co, and has been running through three main oil companies, Galana Energies, Gulf Energy, and Oryx Energies, which have been distributing fuel on behalf of the three Gulf oil companies.

    According to the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum, Kenya extended the G-to-G deal with the Gulf oil firms to 2028. The three firms will continue to supply gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel under the 180-day credit arrangement until early 2028.

    By mid-November 2023, oil imports under the scheme amounted to about $3.7 billion, equivalent to Sh592 billion. Letters of credit worth over $784 million, or Sh125.4 billion, were also settled, underlining the lucrative nature of the deal for players involved.

    What the windfall meant for One Petroleum

    With One Petroleum importing petrol at a premium three times higher than the G-to-G rate, the potential profits were staggering.

    The company invoiced oil companies, with the price build-up showing a premium of $290 per tonne. For a 60-tonne consignment, this translated to a premium payment of $17,400, or approximately Sh2.26 million, above the normal rate.

    But the real money lay in the fact that the cargo was to be used to set pump prices nationwide.

    With the premium factored into the pricing formula, the company stood to make billions in additional revenue from the inflated cost structure that would be passed on to consumers.

    Political connections paying off

    The addition of One Petroleum to the exclusive circle of firms allowed to import fuel represents a significant victory for Jaffer, who has maintained a delicate balancing act in Kenya’s turbulent political landscape. His ability to secure favour from successive regimes, from Moi to Ruto, speaks to a sophisticated understanding of how political connections translate into business opportunities.

    Jaffer’s empire spans grain handling, oil and gas, and port operations, giving him control over critical infrastructure that handles the bulk of Kenya’s imports. With the government allowing his firm to import fuel at bloated prices during a national crisis, his dominance over the country’s energy sector was set to grow even further.

    Global disruptions and the changing landscape

    Following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, oil exporters from the Gulf, including Saudi Aramco which is part of the G-to-G deal, turned to alternative routes. They began using the Sikka Port in India, the Port of Antwerp-Bruges in Belgium and the ports situated along the Red Sea for the transportation of oil to markets such as Kenya.

    About 239.1 million litres of petrol were set to be loaded onto two vessels at the Port of Antwerp-Bruges in Belgium. The vessels were to sail towards Kenya via the Red Sea-Mediterranean route and dock at the Port of Mombasa between April 16 and April 27. Another 81.15 million litres of dual-purpose kerosene and 75.6 million litres of diesel were to be loaded onto vessels at the Sikka Port in India, with those vessels expected to dock at the Port of Mombasa between April 12 and April 21.

    The cost to Kenyans

    While One Petroleum and its politically connected owners stood to make billions from the arrangement, ordinary Kenyans faced the prospect of yet another punishing price hike. The April 15 price review was expected to deliver the highest pump prices in months, reflecting the impact of the fuel supply disruptions caused by the attacks on oil facilities in the Gulf.

    The global energy markets reacted sharply to the crisis, with oil prices surging after Iran threatened shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz. Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi warned lawmakers that the longer the conflict dragged on, the greater the economic shock could become, cautioning that prolonged disruptions to global energy and trade routes could have massive consequences for Kenya’s economy.

    But for Jaffer and One Petroleum, the crisis presented a golden opportunity. The company not only secured a place in the exclusive circle of importers but was also allowed to import fuel at bloated prices that would be passed directly to consumers. It was a classic case of crisis capitalism, where those with the right connections turn national emergencies into personal windfalls.

    What followed

    The Ministry of Energy and Petroleum did not immediately respond to queries over the two vessels and how the government would treat the significantly high premiums in order to protect consumers. Without a steep subsidy, the April 15 to May 14 prices were expected to be the highest in months.

    Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority Director General David Kiptoo later revealed in a television interview that the regulator had incorporated One Petroleum and Asharami Synergy into the G-to-G deal, bringing the number of oil firms to five. Under the current arrangement, three Kenyan oil marketing companies, Galana Oil, Gulf Energy and Oryx Energy, own cargo upon delivery to Mombasa port by the international Gulf-based oil giants.

    The expansion of the deal to include Jaffer’s company raised fresh questions about transparency and whether the government was using the cover of a global crisis to reward its political allies. For now, one thing was certain. While ordinary Kenyans braced for another round of punishing price hikes, the politically connected players in the lucrative oil import game were counting their billions.

  • Woman Accused in High Defamation Blames AI As Case Exposes How Mombasa Billionaire Mohamed Jaffer Allegedly Sponsored Smear Campaign Linking Joho’s Family To Drug Trafficking

    Woman Accused in High Defamation Blames AI As Case Exposes How Mombasa Billionaire Mohamed Jaffer Allegedly Sponsored Smear Campaign Linking Joho’s Family To Drug Trafficking

    A sensational defamation case against Mombasa businessman Abubakar Joho has taken a dramatic twist after the accused claimed a key document linking her to explosive allegations of drug trafficking and Sh40 billion fraud is an artificial intelligence fabrication.

    Matilda Maodo Kinzani, personal assistant to billionaire tycoon Mohamed Jaffer, has successfully halted her prosecution at the High Court by challenging the authenticity of forensic evidence that prosecutors say proves she authored defamatory posts targeting the Joho family.

    The case, which has gripped the coastal business community for months, has laid bare a vicious rivalry between two of Mombasa’s most powerful businessmen, with shocking allegations of systematic character assassination, monopolistic practices and decades of business warfare now playing out in open court.

    Through her lawyer Michael Oloo, Kinzani told the High Court on Wednesday that the contested forensic report is nothing more than a computer-generated fabrication with no credible author, no date, no signature and no laboratory reference number.

    “What was produced was said to be a report by Chief Inspector Joseph Kolum, but it had no author. It was not dated, not signed and did not specify the name of the author. It had no laboratory reference number and no exhibit memo from the investigating officer,” Oloo argued before the High Court.

    The defence maintains the document lacks the mandatory certificate of electronic evidence required under Kenya’s Evidence Act and should be struck from the record entirely. Kinzani has also demanded the entire criminal trial be declared null and void.

    The High Court granted the prosecution 21 days to respond to the application, effectively suspending proceedings in a case that has already exposed the dark underbelly of business competition at Kenya’s largest port.

    The defamation saga began in July 2024 when a letter titled “To the Government of Kenya and the Gen Z” went viral on social media during the politically charged nationwide protests. The document made grave accusations against Abubakar Joho, elder brother to Mining and Blue Economy Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho, including claims he trafficked drugs hidden in rice shipments, stole Sh40 billion from Mombasa County coffers and illegally grabbed land belonging to Kenya Railways.

    Most painfully for the Joho family, the letter attacked their elderly mother with salacious claims about her personal life and suggested Abu was born out of wedlock.

    “The allegations labelled me a child born out of wedlock. That hurt me deeply. You can’t abuse my family and expect me to stay silent,” Abu told Mombasa Senior Resident Magistrate David Odhiambo in May during his rare court appearance.

    In explosive testimony that has since become the talk of business circles, Abu directly named Mohamed Jaffer as the mastermind behind the smear campaign, accusing the billionaire of orchestrating a decades-long pattern of character assassination designed to eliminate business competition.

    “He has had a monopoly for 30 years. Now that I’ve entered the business at the port, that’s where our problems began. He’s the monopoly, I am not,” Abu declared.

    Jaffer, who owns Bulkstream Ltd, formerly Grainbulk Handlers Limited, holds the exclusive licence for mechanical bulk grain handling at the Port of Mombasa. Abu operates Autoport Freight Terminus and Portside Freight Terminal, competing directly in the lucrative port logistics sector worth billions of shillings annually.

    Abu Joho and brother Hassan Joho.
    Abu Joho and brother Hassan Joho.

    According to court documents and police testimony, cybercrime investigators initially traced the defamatory content back to electronic devices linked to Kinzani. Chief Inspector Joseph Kolum told the magistrate’s court his forensic analysis showed the document originated from a computer associated with Kinzani and that author details pointed to her name.

    However, the defence has systematically dismantled the prosecution’s case by exposing serious irregularities in how the evidence was collected and presented.

    Police Constable Fredrick Muchiri of the Anti-Terror Police Unit, who participated in raids on Kinzani’s home and workplace, made damaging admissions during cross-examination. He revealed his handwritten statement had mysteriously gone missing from the court file, with only an unsigned typed version remaining. He also acknowledged the typed statement contained typographical errors.

    Even more bizarrely, Muchiri admitted investigators never recorded a statement from Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga, despite Mainga allegedly being the one who first alerted Abu Joho to the existence of the defamatory document.

    “The information we received is that it was Mr Mainga who notified Mr Abu of the defamatory document. However, I have not examined his phone to verify the communication,” Muchiri testified.

    The involvement of seven Anti-Terror Police Unit officers in what appeared to be a straightforward cybercrime case also raised eyebrows, with the defence questioning why Kenya’s counter-terrorism unit was investigating alleged defamation instead of the designated cybercrime division.

    Muchiri defended his unit’s involvement by insisting he was acting on instructions from superiors and that the law authorizes any police officer to investigate any case.

    The defence has also pointed out that Abu Joho never mentioned Jaffer’s name in his initial complaint filed at Central Police Station. Muchiri admitted during cross-examination that he reviewed the statement and confirmed Jaffer was not named. Abu only learned of Jaffer’s alleged involvement after investigations linked Kinzani, identified as Jaffer’s employee and personal assistant, to the defamatory letter.

    The case has become a lightning rod for long-simmering tensions in Mombasa’s business community, where insiders say Jaffer has maintained an iron grip on port operations for three decades through what critics describe as monopolistic practices and ruthless elimination of competitors.

    Business rivals and industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, have painted a disturbing picture of Jaffer’s alleged business tactics. They claim he has systematically used fabricated scandals, legal warfare and political connections to crush competition across multiple sectors including LPG distribution, grain handling and fertiliser trading.

    The most explosive allegations involve claims that Jaffer sabotaged the government’s subsidized Gas Yetu initiative, a Sh3 billion program designed to provide affordable cooking gas to millions of Kenyan families. Industry insiders allege he feared the program would undercut Pro-Gas profits and orchestrated its collapse through strategic bribes, artificial supply chain problems and negative media coverage.

    Sources also claim Jaffer’s business warfare extended to Tanzania, where President John Magufuli revoked his Import Container Depot licence, prompting Jaffer to sue the Tanzanian government. In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni reportedly blocked Jaffer’s plans to establish an ICD in Tororo after being briefed on his monopolistic practices in Kenya.

    Abu Joho’s testimony revealed the devastating personal toll the alleged smear campaign has taken on his family. He recounted painful conversations with his children who asked whether their family’s income was honestly earned after reading online accusations that their father hid drugs in rice.

    “‘Dad, are we really feeding from honest income? We read that it’s claimed you put drugs in rice and sell it to people,’” Abu recounted, his voice breaking as he testified.

    He maintained his business operations are entirely legitimate and that he has never engaged in drug trafficking or grabbed land belonging to Kenya Railways.

    “This is not business competition. It’s character assassination. It has affected me, my business, and my family,” Abu said. “You can’t drag my name through social media just because of business rivalry. If you have a problem, report it to the police.”

    Kinzani faces four criminal charges under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act for allegedly disseminating false information online. She has denied all accusations and is currently out on Sh300,000 cash bail.

    During his testimony, Abu offered a remarkable olive branch to his accuser despite the gravity of the allegations. “I respect her family. I never had a problem with them until now,” he said, adding, “If it’s proven that the document didn’t originate from Ms Kinzani, then I’ll hug her.”

    The case has also exposed the increasingly sophisticated role of technology in modern defamation disputes. Legal experts say the AI defence represents a new frontier in Kenyan cybercrime law, forcing courts to grapple with questions about the authenticity of digital evidence in an era when artificial intelligence can generate convincing fake documents.

    Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act of 2018 was designed to combat digital fraud and the spread of false information online, but it was drafted before the explosion of generative AI technologies that can now create realistic text, images and even videos that are difficult to distinguish from genuine content.

    The Evidence Act requires electronic evidence to be properly certified with clear chain of custody documentation. Kinzani’s legal team argues the prosecution has failed to meet this threshold, pointing to the absence of any certificate of electronic evidence, the missing handwritten police statement and the lack of the actual device allegedly used to create the document.

    “The document has no certificate of electronic evidence as required by the Evidence Act. There is no chain of custody and no compliance with admissibility guidelines,” the defence stated.

    They also noted the document was purportedly addressed to the Government of Kenya, which is not a party to the proceedings, and was never mentioned in earlier forensic reports presented by prosecutors.

    Chief Inspector Kolum told the court that although the specific device used to generate the document was never physically recovered, his data analysis linked it to Kinzani. He also revealed she left the country shortly after the document was authored, a detail prosecutors say demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

    Several electronic devices were recovered during raids on premises linked to Grain Bulk Limited and subsequently returned to Kinzani after forensic analysis in Nairobi. The information retrieved allegedly showed she was an employee of the company and a regular user of some devices, though the defence disputes the reliability and admissibility of this evidence.

    The magistrate’s court had earlier ruled the contested document could be produced but not necessarily admitted as evidence, prompting Kinzani to escalate the matter to the High Court where she argues admitting it would violate her constitutional right to a fair trial.

    The High Court is expected to rule on whether the forensic report will remain on record or be struck out, a decision that could determine the fate of the entire prosecution.

    For Abu Joho, the case represents far more than personal vindication. It has become a battle for the integrity of business competition in Kenya and a test of whether powerful tycoons can use smear campaigns to eliminate rivals with impunity.

    “All I want is justice,” Abu concluded his testimony. “Not just for my family, but for every Kenyan who has suffered under this man’s ruthless pursuit of profit at any cost.”

    The Joho family has faced multiple legal battles in recent months, including a Supreme Court decision that nullified a Sh5.8 billion grain facility deal at Mombasa port involving Portside Freight Terminals Limited, a company linked to the family. The ruling dealt a significant blow to their logistics empire and intensified already fierce competition at the port.

    As the case unfolds, it promises to reshape not just Mombasa’s business landscape but potentially Kenya’s entire approach to monopolistic practices, cybercrime prosecution and the use of digital evidence in courts.

    The next hearing is scheduled for early 2026, when prosecutors must respond to Kinzani’s application to have the case declared null and void. Legal observers say the outcome could set important precedents for how Kenyan courts handle AI-related defences in cybercrime cases and what standards of evidence are required to prove the authenticity of digital documents in the age of artificial intelligence.

    For now, Mombasa’s business community watches anxiously as two of its most powerful figures battle in court over allegations that have exposed the often brutal reality behind Kenya’s gleaming port infrastructure and multi-billion shilling logistics industry.

  • Temporary Reprieve As Mohamed Jaffer Wins Mombasa Land Compensation Despite Losing LPG Monopoly and Bitter Fallout With Johos

    Temporary Reprieve As Mohamed Jaffer Wins Mombasa Land Compensation Despite Losing LPG Monopoly and Bitter Fallout With Johos

    MOMBASA—In what appears to be a rare victory amid mounting business pressures, controversial Mombasa tycoon Mohamed Jaffer has secured a major legal win after the Environment and Land Court ordered the Kenya National Highways Authority and the National Land Commission to compensate him for land seized during the expansion of the Mombasa-Nairobi highway.

    The court’s November 26 ruling represents a temporary reprieve for the businessman whose once-unassailable dominance in Kenya’s port logistics sector has come under sustained assault from powerful rivals and political heavyweights, setting the stage for what insiders describe as the most vicious business war ever witnessed in the coastal region.

    Justice presiding over the Malindi court directed KeNHA and NLC to pay Jaffer and his business associate, industrialist Ashok Doshi, full compensation for parcels of land in Mariakani, Kilifi County, within 60 days.

    The two businessmen had sued after government authorities demolished their perimeter wall and began construction work without following proper land acquisition procedures.

    The court found that there had been no notice of intent to acquire, no inquiry, no participation by the petitioners, no valuation, no award, and critically, no compensation before the authorities bulldozed onto the private property and tore down the boundary wall in January this year.

    However, this legal victory comes at a time when Jaffer’s business fortunes appear increasingly besieged on multiple fronts.

    The tycoon, who has enjoyed what competitors describe as a three-decade monopoly in the lucrative cooking gas and grain handling sectors at Mombasa port, now finds himself fighting battles in courtrooms, boardrooms and the unforgiving arena of public opinion.

    Just weeks before his land compensation victory, Jaffer suffered a crushing defeat when the High Court cleared Tanzanian billionaire Rostam Aziz to proceed with the construction of a massive Sh16 billion LPG terminal at Dongo Kundu Special Economic Zone in Likoni.

    The 30,000-metric-ton facility, which Aziz claims will be the largest in Africa, will operate right at Jaffer’s doorstep, directly challenging his Africa Gas and Oil Ltd plant in the same area.

    The court ruled that a petition seeking to stop the Taifa Gas project was improperly filed and that environmental concerns should have been addressed through the National Environmental Tribunal rather than the courts.

    For Aziz, who was ranked Tanzania’s first dollar billionaire by Forbes in 2013, the ruling represents a significant breakthrough after years of what he described as bureaucratic stonewalling by Kenyan authorities.

    Industry analysts predict the entry of Taifa Gas will trigger fierce competition that could finally break Jaffer’s iron grip on Kenya’s cooking gas market, potentially leading to lower prices for the 2.87 million Kenyan households that rely on LPG for cooking.

    Mr. Rostam Aziz
    Mr. Rostam Aziz

    Aziz has already begun supplying the Kenyan retail market via road from Tanzania, but the new terminal will give him the capacity to compete directly with established players like Vivo, Rubis and Total.

    The stakes are enormous.

    Jaffer’s AGOL plant, which has a storage capacity of 25,000 tonnes following upgrades to the facility originally built in 2013, has operated with minimal competition, allowing the tycoon to charge fees that industry insiders suggest have remained artificially high due to lack of market pressure.

    His ownership of Proto Energy, the maker of Pro Gas, along with AGOL, has given him what competitors describe as a stranglehold on the sector.

    But the threat from Aziz pales in comparison to the scorched-earth confrontation between Jaffer and the politically connected Joho family, a feud that has spilled from business competition into character assassination and criminal courts.

    At the center of the storm is Abubakar Ali Joho, brother to Cabinet Secretary for Mining and Blue Economy Hassan Joho, whose entry into the port logistics business through Autoport Freight Terminus and Portside Freight Terminal has allegedly triggered what he describes as a sustained smear campaign orchestrated by Jaffer.

    The bad blood between the two business titans exploded into public view when Matilda Maodo Kinzani, an employee of Jaffer’s Bulkstream Ltd, was charged in court with publishing false and defamatory information linking Abu Joho to a Sh40 billion fraud scheme.

    The document, which allegedly circulated on WhatsApp and social media, made grave accusations against the Joho family including involvement in drug trafficking and illegal acquisition of Kenya Railways land.

    During explosive court testimony, Abu Joho directly blamed Jaffer for the attacks. “He has had a monopoly for 30 years. Now that I have entered the port business, that’s where our troubles began. He is the monopoly; I am not,” Abu Joho told the court, his voice heavy with frustration. “This is not business competition. It’s character assassination. It has affected me, my business, and my family.”

    The case took a dramatic turn when it emerged that Philip Mainga, Managing Director of Kenya Railways Corporation, allegedly alerted Abu Joho to the existence of the defamatory document.

    Police Constable Fredrick Muchiri of the Anti-Terror Police Unit testified that Mainga informed Abu Joho about the circulating document, though he admitted he had not examined Mainga’s phone to verify the communication.

    The involvement of seven Anti-Terror Police Unit officers in raiding Kinzani’s home and workplace to seize electronic devices raised eyebrows, with defense lawyers questioning why an anti-terrorism unit was investigating what appeared to be a straightforward cybercrime case.

    Muchiri defended the unit’s involvement, insisting they were not investigating terrorism.

    Forensic analysis traced the defamatory document to Kinzani’s electronic devices, leading to her being charged with four counts under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.

    She has denied all accusations and is currently out on Sh300,000 cash bail.

    For Jaffer, who also controls Grain Bulk Handlers with its near-monopoly on discharge and handling of bulk grain cargo at Mombasa port, the convergence of these battles represents the greatest threat to his business empire in decades.

    His dominance has been built not just on infrastructure and capital, but on carefully cultivated political networks that have helped him navigate the treacherous waters of Kenyan business.

    The same could be said of his adversaries.

    Aziz served as an MP and treasurer of Tanzania’s ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi, while the Joho family’s political connections need no introduction, with Hassan Joho serving in President William Ruto’s Cabinet after years as Mombasa Governor.

    The land compensation ruling, while a victory, does little to address the fundamental challenge facing Jaffer.

    His business model, predicated on monopolistic control of critical port infrastructure, is being systematically dismantled by competitors with deep pockets, political backing, and the determination to break his grip on the coastal economy.

    The National Land Commission’s claim that it had conducted a review of grants and dispositions in Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale counties, arriving at recommendations published in a Gazette Notice that potentially affected Jaffer and Doshi’s land titles, suggests that even this week’s court victory may face further legal challenges.

    As the billionaire’s brawl intensifies, ordinary Kenyans can only watch and hope that the competition ultimately translates into lower costs for essential services like cooking gas and port logistics.

    Whether Jaffer can weather this perfect storm of legal battles, business competition and political vendettas remains to be seen.

    What is certain is that the era of unchallenged dominance in Mombasa’s port economy is over.

    The question now is not whether Jaffer’s monopoly will be broken, but how much of his business empire will remain standing when the dust finally settles.

  • Why Kenya Railways Boss Mainga’s Involvement in Joho-Jaffer Defamation Case Came Up in Court

    Why Kenya Railways Boss Mainga’s Involvement in Joho-Jaffer Defamation Case Came Up in Court

    The Managing Director of Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC), Philip Mainga, has found himself unexpectedly mentioned in a high-profile defamation case involving Mombasa businessman Abubakar Ali Joho and his business rival, highlighting the complex web of relationships in Kenya’s port logistics sector.

    The Unexpected Witness

    Mainga’s name surfaced during court proceedings where Matilda Maodo Kinzani, an employee of Bulkstream Ltd, faces charges of publishing false and defamatory information about Abubakar Ali Joho – brother to Cabinet Secretary for Mining and Blue Economy Hassan Joho – and allegedly linking him to a Sh40 billion fraud scheme.

    According to testimony from Police Constable Fredrick Muchiri of the Anti-Terror Police Unit (ATPU), Mainga allegedly informed Abu Joho about the existence of a defamatory document circulating on social media that targeted both him and his prominent brother.

    “The information we received is that it was Mr Mainga who notified Mr Abu of the defamatory document. However, I have not examined his phone to verify the communication,” Muchiri told Mombasa Senior Resident Magistrate David Odhiambo during cross-examination last Friday.

    The Business Rivalry Context

    The defamation case centers on accusations that Abu Joho’s entry into the port logistics business disrupted a three-decade monopoly allegedly held by tycoon Mohamed Jaffer, owner of Bulkstream Ltd (formerly Grainbulk Handlers Limited). This business rivalry forms the backdrop of what Abu Joho describes as a “sustained smear campaign” against his family.

    Abu Joho, who operates Autoport Freight Terminus and Portside Freight Terminal, directly blamed Jaffer for orchestrating the attacks. “He has had a monopoly for 30 years. Now that I have entered the port business, that’s where our troubles began. He is the monopoly; I am not,” he testified.

    The Defamatory Document

    The controversial document allegedly made grave accusations against Abu Joho, including:

    • Involvement in drug trafficking
    • Illegally acquiring Kenya Railways land in Mombasa
    • Helping his brother embezzle Sh40 billion from Mombasa County coffers
    • Personal attacks on his family’s reputation

    The document was allegedly circulated in a WhatsApp group and later spread across social media platforms, prompting Abu Joho to file a formal complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) in July 2024.

    Forensic Evidence Points to Accused

    Despite Mainga’s alleged role in alerting Abu Joho to the document’s existence, police investigations traced the defamatory content to Kinzani’s electronic devices. Constable Muchiri emphasized that forensic analysis confirmed Kinzani as the author, not Mainga.

    “It is not possible that Mr Mainga authored the letter because forensic analysis traced it to Ms Kinzani’s phone. I reviewed the forensic report, which links the document to the accused,” Muchiri testified.

    Procedural Questions Raised

    The defense, led by lawyer Michael Oloo, raised questions about the investigation’s handling, particularly why an Anti-Terror Police Unit was investigating a cybercrime case rather than the designated cybercrime division. Seven ATPU officers participated in raiding Kinzani’s home and workplace to seize electronic devices for forensic analysis.

    Muchiri defended the unit’s involvement, stating: “We were not investigating Ms Kinzani for terrorism. This publication did not constitute a terrorist threat.”

    Missing Evidence and Administrative Issues

    In a surprising development, Muchiri admitted that his handwritten statement was missing from the court file, with only a typed version containing typographical errors available to both prosecution and defense teams.

    “The statement in the file is typed, but it’s not signed by me. I wrote and submitted it to the investigating officer, but it’s missing. I don’t know why,” he revealed.

    The case highlights the intense competition in Kenya’s lucrative port logistics sector, where established players face disruption from new entrants.

    Abu Joho’s emergence as a significant player in the industry has apparently triggered what he describes as character assassination rather than fair business competition.

    “This is not business competition. It’s character assassination. It has affected me, my business, and my family,” Abu Joho lamented during his testimony.

    The Charges

    Kinzani faces four criminal charges under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act for allegedly disseminating false and defamatory information online. She has denied all accusations and is currently out on Sh300,000 cash bail.

    What’s Next

    The case continues to unfold with the prosecution seeking to establish the full extent of the alleged defamation campaign.

    While Mainga’s exact role remains unclear – he was not called as a witness despite allegedly being the one who alerted Abu Joho to the document – his mention underscores the interconnected nature of Kenya’s business and government circles.

    The hearing is set to continue on August 8, 2025, with the lead investigator expected to provide more details about the forensic analysis that linked the defamatory document to the accused.

    As this case progresses, it offers a rare glimpse into the high-stakes world of port logistics business, where competition can quickly escalate from boardrooms to courtrooms, dragging in unexpected players from Kenya’s public sector.

  • Omtatah Wins Case For Mohamed Jaffer As Joho Family Suffers Blow In Court Case Against Port Monopoly

    Omtatah Wins Case For Mohamed Jaffer As Joho Family Suffers Blow In Court Case Against Port Monopoly

    Supreme Court quashes Sh5.8 billion grain facility deal, dealing major setback to Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho’s family business interests at Mombasa Port

    The Supreme Court has delivered a crushing blow to Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho’s family business empire, nullifying a lucrative Sh5.8 billion grain handling facility deal at Mombasa Port in a landmark ruling that effectively preserves Mohamed Jaffer’s three-decade monopoly in the sector.

    In a significant victory for activist Okiya Omtatah and indirectly for business tycoon Mohamed Jaffer, the apex court ruled that the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) violated constitutional procurement procedures when it awarded the contract to Portside Freight Terminals Limited, a company linked to the Joho family.

    Constitutional Violation Cited

    A five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu declared that KPA’s use of the Specially Permitted Procurement Procedure (SPPP) to award the licence was “inconsistent with the Constitution,” emphasizing that all public projects must follow fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective processes.

    “The protection of the supremacy of the Constitution is critical and there can be no greater public or national security interest than upholding the Constitution, its values and principles and obeying the law,” the justices stated in their unanimous decision.

    The court found that KPA had failed to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” that would justify bypassing competitive tendering, a requirement under Section 114A of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.

    Omtatah’s Persistent Legal Challenge

    Senator Okiya Omtatah, who has been challenging the Joho family’s port business dealings since 2022, argued that the procurement process was discriminatory and that other companies were unfairly excluded from consideration. His legal activism has now culminated in this major victory against what he termed an irregular procurement process.

    The Busia Senator’s persistence in demanding transparency began in May 2022 when he sued KPA for refusing to provide copies of licenses issued to Portside Freight Terminals Ltd and Heartland Terminals Ltd. He had argued that the secrecy surrounding the deal violated his constitutional right to access information on matters of significant public interest.

    Business Rivalry and Port Politics

    The Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for the ongoing business rivalry between the Joho family and Mohamed Jaffer, whose company Bulkstream Ltd (formerly Grain Bulk Handlers Limited) has operated the sole bulk grain facility at Mombasa Port for over 30 years.

    The government had argued that the second facility was necessary to end Jaffer’s monopoly and enhance food security through diversification.

    However, the court’s decision effectively maintains the status quo, preserving Jaffer’s dominant position in the grain handling business.

    The rivalry between the two business interests has spilled over into the courts in multiple ways. In ongoing defamation proceedings, Abubakar Ali Joho (Abu), brother to CS Hassan Joho, has accused Jaffer of orchestrating a smear campaign against his family following their entry into the port logistics business.

    “He has had a monopoly for 30 years. Now that I have entered the port business, that’s where our troubles began. He is the monopoly; I am not,” Abu Joho testified in court, directly naming Jaffer as being behind attacks on his family’s reputation.

    Financial and Strategic Implications

    The blocked project, estimated to cost approximately $45 million (Sh5.8 billion), would have seen Portside Freight Terminals construct a second bulk grain handling facility with a common user island berth. The facility was expected to complement the existing capacity of 2.4 million tonnes annually at the port.

    KPA had argued that Portside Freight Terminals offered strategic advantages, including ownership of adjacent land and willingness to build the berth at its own cost. However, these commercial considerations were deemed insufficient to override constitutional procurement requirements.

    Broader Context of Joho Business Empire

    The Supreme Court decision represents the latest setback for the Joho family’s expanding business interests. The family has faced multiple legal challenges across various sectors, from port operations to real estate deals, including a recent Sh9 billion land deal connected to the Talanta Stadium project.

    The ruling also comes amid ongoing defamation cases where the family has been accused of various improprieties, including allegations of defrauding Mombasa County of over Sh40 billion during Hassan Joho’s tenure as governor – claims the family vehemently denies.

    Legal Precedent and Future Implications

    The Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precedent for public procurement, emphasizing that no project, regardless of its perceived strategic importance or urgency, can circumvent constitutional requirements for competitive tendering.

    The court overturned a Court of Appeal ruling that had initially cleared the way for the project, stating that the appellate judges had erred in reversing the High Court’s original decision blocking the deal.

    Legal experts view the ruling as a vindication of constitutional procurement principles and a warning to public entities against misusing alternative procurement methods to avoid competition.

    What’s Next

    With the Supreme Court ruling being final, Portside Freight Terminals Limited will be unable to proceed with the grain facility project under the current arrangement. Any future attempts to establish a second bulk grain handling facility at Mombasa Port will need to follow proper competitive tendering procedures.

    For Mohamed Jaffer’s Bulkstream Ltd, the ruling preserves their exclusive position in grain handling at Kenya’s largest port, maintaining a business arrangement that has lasted over three decades.

    The decision also validates Omtatah’s role as a key figure in ensuring government accountability and transparency in public procurement processes, adding to his reputation as a formidable legal activist willing to challenge powerful business and political interests.

  • Tanzanian Billionaire Defies Court Orders, Presses On With Kilifi Gas Plant Amid Safety Fears

    Tanzanian Billionaire Defies Court Orders, Presses On With Kilifi Gas Plant Amid Safety Fears

    In a bold move that has raised serious concerns about regulatory compliance and public safety, Tanzanian billionaire Ally Edha Awadh’s Lake Gas is pushing ahead with its controversial bulk cooking gas terminal in Kilifi County, despite a clear court ruling halting construction and revoking the company’s environmental license.

    The 25,000-metric tonne liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facility, situated along Kenya’s coast, represents a significant business expansion for Awadh’s Lake Group.

    However, the project now stands at the center of a growing controversy that pits economic interests against environmental safety and community rights.

    “Tanks with a storage capacity of 10,000 tonnes are ready for use,” a company insider confirmed to Kenya Insights, adding that Lake Gas is preparing to commence operations “within the month” – a statement that directly contradicts the March 10th ruling by the National Environment Tribunal.

    Court Orders Flouted

    The tribunal explicitly revoked Lake Oil’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) permit, which had been issued by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in December 2019.

    The ruling cited “want of adequate public participation” with the local community – a critical requirement for projects with potential environmental and safety implications.

    “It is hereby ordered and decreed, that the EIA licence No. NEMA/EIA/PSL/8728 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent on December 10, 2019, is hereby cancelled/revoked,” stated the tribunal in its unambiguous ruling.

    More troublingly, this wasn’t the first time Lake Oil has shown disregard for legal directives.

    The tribunal also ordered directors of both Lake Oil and Vipingo Development Limited – the landowners – to pay a Sh2 million fine for defying an earlier January order to freeze construction pending final decisions.

    Community Concerns

    Local residents who petitioned against the project expressed serious concerns about both the environmental impact and safety risks associated with a major LPG facility in their community.

    “The company conducted superficial consultations that didn’t address our concerns about potential gas leaks, explosions, or other accidents,” said Amina Juma, a community representative who wrote to Kenya Insights.

    “A facility of this magnitude requires thorough risk assessment and community input, neither of which happened adequately.”

    Environmental experts note that properly conducted EIAs are essential for identifying and mitigating negative environmental and social impacts of industrial projects, particularly those handling volatile substances like LPG.

    The standoff comes amid significant changes in Kenya’s cooking gas market.

    Lake Gas and fellow Tanzanian tycoon Rostam Aziz‘s Taifa Gas represent new entrants challenging the near-monopoly of Mohamed Jaffer’s African Gas and Oil Limited (AGOL), which currently handles approximately 90 percent of Kenya’s imported LPG.

    Industry analysts suggest that additional competition could potentially lower handling fees and, consequently, retail prices for cooking gas – a welcome development for Kenyan consumers facing high energy costs.

    However, these economic benefits must be balanced against safety and environmental considerations, particularly when investors appear willing to circumvent regulatory processes.

    Regulatory Response Awaited

    All eyes are now on the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA), which initially approved the project following NEMA’s now-revoked permit. There are credible fears that rogue EPRA officials could be compromised by huge cash to look aside as it has been in many cases before.

    Industry observers are watching closely to see if EPRA will enforce the tribunal’s decision by issuing orders to halt the project immediately.

    “This case represents a critical test of Kenya’s regulatory framework,” noted environmental law expert Dr. James Mwangi. “When wealthy investors openly defy court orders, it undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for future projects.”

    Kenya Pipeline Company is also planning to build a 30,000-tonne government-owned facility in Changamwe, which would further reshape market dynamics if completed.

    For now, Lake Gas appears determined to forge ahead with its operations despite the legal cloud hanging over the project – raising serious questions about regulatory enforcement and corporate accountability in Kenya’s energy sector.

    As this story continues to develop, Kenya Insights will provide updates on regulatory responses and potential implications for both the cooking gas market and environmental governance in Kenya.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

  • Is Progas Closing Shops?

    Is Progas Closing Shops?

    Proto Energy, the makers of Pro Gas, has announced a public auction of 209 motor vehicles and 133 motorcycles, raising the question of whether the firm is closing down.

    In a notice on Friday, July 26, the energy company said the auction will be conducted in the Nakuru plant, Miritini and Mackenzie Yard Jomvu in Mombasa, and Kabati in Thika Kiambu County.

    “Proto Energy Limited invites applications from interested bidders for the purchase of underlisted items,” reads the notice in part.

    The sale includes models such as Haojins, Tata, Mercedes Benz, Dogumak trailers, Trailer Claytoa Comus, and Altinodu trailers. Additionally, TVS 125 motorcycles are available.

    Pro Gas has dominated the LPG market, and its owner, Mohamed Jaffer, has been accused of manipulating the previous governments that he had enjoyed close relations with and stifling competition.

    Jaffer was accused of frustrating the affordable Mwananchi Gas project that was aimed at giving Kenyans affordable gas, and for fear of getting run over, Jaffer worked with the previous administration and its corrupt officials and stalled the project.

    Mwananchi Gas

    Under the Mwananchi Gas Project, more than four million households were to be supplied with six-kilo cooking gas cylinders and burners for a discounted price of Sh2,000 each in three years, with refills costing Sh840.

    A parliamentary watchdog committee, chaired by Ugunja MP Opiyo Wandayi, inquired into the Mwananchi Gas Project following queries raised by the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the State Department for Petroleum for the year 2017/18.

    The audit showed taxpayers did not get value for money arising from shortcomings in the implementation of the project.

    It found that contracts were awarded on the basis of unenforceable performance bonds and with no performance durations.

    The cooking gas subsidy plan was initiated by the defunct Ministry of Energy and Petroleum during the 2016/2017 financial year.

    The plan was aimed at cutting reliance on kerosene and charcoal, which are not environment-friendly but are the main source of fuel for most rural and urban poor households.

    The project entailed the supply and distribution of LPG cylinders, grills, and burners to households at subsidised prices and the erection of facilities to store the cylinders at local distribution points.

    The audit showed that 10 firms had been contracted by the ministry in May 2017 to supply various components of the LPG gas project at an aggregate cost of Sh1 billion.

    As of the end of June 2018, the State Department for Petroleum had spent a total of Sh870 million.

    A total of 109,649 six-kilogramme cylinders, 329,422 burners, and 329,260 grills have been lying in state-owned National Oil Corporation (Nock) warehouses since the distribution was halted in 2018.

    The exercise aborted after it emerged that some contractors had supplied 67,251 faulty gas cylinders prone to fire eruptions.

    Nock suspended the project, citing distribution challenges.

    When he appeared before PAC, Mr. Kamau said the project had not stalled but that it had been delayed by cases filed against the ministry and Nock by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek).

    “The State Department procured Third Party Inspection Services in FY 2019/20 after the withdrawal of the court case by Cofek and clearance from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for LPG cylinders, which were procured in the financial year 2016/17. In conclusion, the Mwananchi Gas Project is ongoing and has not stalled,” he said.

    Of the Sh870 million expenditure, PAC said the ministry had paid out Sh481 million, leaving a pending bill of Sh389 million as of June 2018.

    The question is, just how did an ambitious plan go down the drain?

    It all started with a contract awarded by the Petroleum Ministry and the National Oil Corporation of Kenya (Nock) to a consortium led by Allied East Africa Ltd. The decision by two senior state officials to cut a deal with a company teetering on the brink of bankruptcy led to the uneventful collapse of a project that would have seen millions of homes supplied with cheap cooking gas.

    Kenya Insights is informed that the decision to hand the Sh3 billion tender to Allied East Africa Ltd., a firm already under administration, was orchestrated by a senior member of the executive and a vocal MP who together created a company that became part of four firms that were to supply the National Oil Corporation of Kenya (NOCK) with 500,000 gas cylinders.

    Allied East Africa was already broke by the time it won the tender in late 2016. On July 15, 2016, a few months before it won the tender, the High Court found Allied East Africa in default of a Sh135 million debt they owed to First Community Bank, a situation that led to its subsidiary Midland Energy being put under administration two years later.

    It is not clear how a company unable to pay a debt of Sh135 million convinced the government that it could manufacture and supply gas cylinders worth Sh300 million.

    But after being put in liquidation, it became clear that Allied East Africa, which had requested the court to bar First Community from listing it with the Credit Reference Bureau (CRB), was also being sought by ABC Bank and I&M Bank.

    It is not the first time the government has awarded a major project to a bankrupt company, with the latest case being the multi-billion-shilling construction of the Arror and Kimwarer dams, which were awarded to a broke Italian firm.

    But Allied East Africa, which owned an LPG distribution company known as Midland Energy that dealt in a brand called Mid Gas, did not manufacture the cylinders locally, according to the source.

    Having gotten the tender but with no capacity to deliver, the consortium turned to Mohammed Jaffer, owner of Africa Gas and Oil (AGOL), which also owns Proto Energy Limited, under which Pro Gas is sold.

    The company was then just beginning and was virtually unknown in the country.

    Jaffer had however managed to obtain a lease for use of a cylinder pressing machine from KPA in a shady deal that seems to have been orchestrated by officials from the Energy Ministry.

    The fraudulent suppliers, in the first batch, delivered faulty cylinders, raising questions about quality assurance and monitoring of the manufacturing process.

    A total of 67,251 cylinders were found to be leaking, posing a serious safety hazard had they gone into circulation.

    This, however, seemed to be part of the grand plan to kill the project as then PS Andrew Kamau cancelled the tender purchase order of 357,000 cylinders despite money having been paid out to East Africa Allied and Mohammed Jaffer.

    The PS also cancelled another purchase order of 700,000 cylinders with little explanation as to how the total budgetary allocation that had risen to Ksh2.9 billion had been spent.

    This necessitated the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) sue the government in October 2018.

    COFEK told court the government’s ambitious programme to buy and supply 5 million subsidised gas cylinders to low- and middle-income households by the end of 2019 was in jeopardy as 60% of the cylinders delivered were faulty.

    As Kenyans continued wondering why the Gas Yetu project is not taking off despite the immense benefits it would have afforded them, a new player in the market was beginning to emerge.

    With its bright pink-coloured cylinders, Jaffer’s Pro Gas was starting to penetrate into the market, offering gas cylinders at cheaper rates than competitors.

    Pro Gas, with the help of the then Energy CS Charles Keter, PS Njoroge, and other corrupt government officials at the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) and Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), continue to engage in illegal and unfair trade practices to gain an edge over competitors.

    Through use of intimidation tactics and sabotage, Pro Gas has been hiring thieves in hoods to steal cylinders from competitors, resulting in millions of shillings in losses.

    On June 20, 2019 at Southernsun, Mayfair Hotel in Nairobi, members of the LPG Cylinder Exchange Pool lamented the unfair practices by Pro Gas. Minutes of the meeting also indicate that members voted for pricing formulas, with the majority preferring cylinder cost minus validation cost to remain competitive.

    However, EPRA went against the norm and published new rates. In a public notice issued July 25, 2019, EPRA announced a new deposit rate of Ksh 2,170.03 for the 6 kg cylinder and Ksh 3,588.86 for the 13 kg cylinder.

    These rates, according to members of the exchange pool, are in bad faith and are bound to result in massive losses.

    Despite numerous complaints to EPRA, no action is taken against Pro Gas.

    Exchange Pool members now say they have evidence that PS Njoroge has been receiving Ksh30 million monthly in bribes while other officials at EPRA led by the corrupt Director-General Robert Oimeke pocket not less than Ksh10 million each month.

    This is also the case at KRA, with senior officials receiving millions of shillings monthly to turn a blind eye to Jaffer’s indiscretions.

    The tycoon has also pocketed a significant number of MPs, ensuring that any parliamentary committee investigations go his way.

    To date, there have been more than five investigations into the unfair monopoly by his companies, including Grain Bulk Handling Limited (GBHL), but no action has been taken.

    Through bribery, Jaffer has now completely taken over the imports, distribution, and retail business in the LPG sector, undercutting other companies and driving them out of business altogether.

    Suits filed in court against Pro Gas, Energy Ministry, and EPRA are often thrown out as he bribes witnesses and threatens anyone who comes in his way.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Photos taken at the main Pro Gas yard in Kabati show they have been stockpiling the stolen cylinders there from where they are washed, repainted, and rebranded into the signature bright pink color. They are then refilled and distributed to Kenyans at very low prices, dealing a huge blow to competitors.

    In October 2018, at the height of the Gas Yetu scandal, DCI George Kinoti said he would begin investigations into the loss of billions.

    “We will initiate a probe. We cannot allow a programme that is funded by taxpayers to put Kenyan citizens at risk,” said Mr. Kinoti.

    Years later, though, no investigations have been done, and no one has been taken to court over the scam, raising questions about how many agencies are on the take from Mohammed Jaffer.

    This means 80% of Kenyans who use firewood and kerosene continue to suffer at the hands of cartels at the Energy Ministry.

    In October 2020, while acting on intelligence tips, KRA raised the Pro-Gas plant in Mombasa in a suspected Sh200 million tax evasion scandal. African Gas and Oil Company Mombasa is said to have been underpaying the corporate tax and also reducing the company’s tax liability by under-declaring and undervaluing imports.

    The new development of the parliamentary watchdog committee reignites one of Kenya’s most under-discussed scandals, where greedy businessmen hijacked a plan that would have given the poor affordable cooking options; instead, they took it to their advantage and found a leeway to build their own dirty empires. In our following series, we tell you how and why the Kenyan government is on the spot for ceding the importation of liquefied petroleum gas to a private company, something that has made efforts to make cooking gas affordable and accessible to the majority come to naught.

    Despite implementing fiscal policies, subsidising cylinders, and going to the extent of launching a cooking gas programme to make gas affordable to the common man, industry players contend that ceding the bulk importation of LPG to Africa Gas and Oil Ltd has denied the country the benefits of cheap cooking gas.