The government should approach procurement of global mining companies and developers for Kwale County’s Mrima Hill niobium and rare earths project with more transparency.
On Wednesday, I reached out to the Principal Secretary for Mining, Harry Kimtai, for an update on the procurement, and asked him to respond to claims that firms from a powerful country had been surreptitiously allowed to submit bids after the April 21 deadline.
He replied by WhatsApp, but left out the most important detail – the names of the firms on the shortlist. He disclosed only that evaluation and shortlisting of qualified firms had been completed the previous week, that those firms had been notified and invited to submit proposals for the request-for-proposal stage, and that this stage was expected to conclude by the end of October.
What is the rationale behind this strategy of controlled disclosure? Why didn’t the ministry hold a press conference and publicly share this information once the critical first stage was concluded?
Mrima Hill represents Kenya’s entry into the premier league of global strategic resources. If I were making the decisions, I would immediately appoint elite international transaction advisers to manage the next stage.
Truth be told, our Ministry of Mining cannot match – let alone face down – Washington-backed venture lawyers, Chinese State syndicates, and corporate dealmakers by relying solely on routine civil service capacity. We need an independent, highly specialised team of global mining attorneys, rare-earth metallurgists, and project finance experts to safeguard national interests.
The most effective shield against weaponised local litigation is total transparency. A successful process requires publishing details of environmental impact studies, radioactive waste management plans, and proposed royalty-sharing mechanisms.
This is how you deprive opportunistic intermediaries of the secrecy they need to manipulate public opinion.
Kwale residents must not endure a repeat of their exploitative experience with the titanium mining project. This time, benefit-sharing arrangements should be legally structured to flow directly into transparent, community-governed trust funds – bypassing political gatekeepers and self-appointed representatives entirely.
The battle for Mrima is no longer just an African mining concession; it has quietly become a focal point of global critical-minerals geopolitics. The shortlist pits Chinese state-backed heavyweights – such as Shenghe Resources and China National Nuclear Corporation – against Western-aligned consortia backed by American, British, and Australian private equity.
But the true centre of gravity in this contest is what might be called “the American factor.” Long before the shortlisting, the geopolitical undertones had already surfaced at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, where President William Ruto made a calculated statement: Kenya was discussing a landmark critical minerals agreement with the United States, explicitly tying rare earth extraction to in-country processing.
The signal to Washington was unmistakable – Nairobi was willing to integrate into the West’s reshaped supply chains, helping break China’s roughly 90 percent chokehold on global downstream rare-earth refining.
As we are now learning, making declarations at global summits is far easier than executing complex, legally binding concession agreements back home.
The State now finds itself where bilateral diplomacy intersects with high-stakes private venture capital.
Adding to the complexity, international media – including the Financial Times – have reported on quiet, high-level manoeuvring by venture capital firms tied to political dynasties in Washington.
For Kenya, having Washington’s political heavyweights and venture vehicles watching the Mrima Hill tender is dangerous: we risk being dragged into proxy battles where sovereign decisions face intense external pressure.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Kwale, this convergence of global capital and diplomacy is fertile ground for local opportunistic resistance.
Expect a rapid rise of single-issue organisations and elite-fronted community groups. While grievances over land titling, waste management, and royalties are real, local elites know that US and European bidders – under strict domestic scrutiny – are hypersensitive to legal delays.
By hijacking genuine grievances, gatekeepers can weaponise litigation to force concessions.
If Kenya is to convert this geopolitical interest into lasting national wealth – rather than endless court battles – the government must handle this procurement with utmost transparency.
Already, an entity called the Centre for Litigation Trust has petitioned the High Court over the Kenya-US deal, citing secrecy.