Category: Business Daily

The recent visit by the French president for the Africa Forward Summit sparked the usual flurry of diplomatic commentary.

It took me back to the 12th-century French word, franchir, meaning “to free”.

What if the key to taking Africa forward lies not in foreign treaties, but in freeing its own entrepreneurs from the one person holding them back, themselves?

In Kenya, as across much of Africa, we have a paradox.

The nation’s SMEs are the backbone of the economy. It contributes 34 per cent to GDP and 15 million jobs, yet this engine of growth still struggles to move forward. Over 80 percent of small businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa fail within their first five years, hitting an invisible ceiling that prevents them from scaling.

The cause is not a lack of ambition but invisible operational chaos.

The vision to execution gap and failure to translate a founder’s idea into scalable, repeatable outcomes. This gap, born from a weak foundation in governance and risk management, is the silent killer of scale.

From an investor’s perspective, the narrative continues with the founder’s dilemma. The choice between absolute control and funded growth. Too many founders choose control, creating a key-man risk.

As decision-making becomes centralised

in one person, it limits potential investment opportunities, particularly when boards which are often ceremonial lack the teeth to provide meaningful oversight and governance.

Well-meaning institutions have tried to intervene. The Nairobi Securities Exchange’s Ibuka Program, designed to prepare SMEs for public listing, has seen limited success. With an official recently admitting it “did not see the success it was meant to have.”

Why? Because a top-down program cannot fix a bottom-up problem. You cannot simply polish a company for public markets if its core is still stuck in operational chaos.

The solution, then, must come from within. It requires a mindset shift from “hustle” to “structure.” And the most powerful, yet underutilized, strategy for achieving this is the discipline of “franchisability.”

This isn’t necessarily about selling franchises. It is the process of developing a business model so well-documented, systemised, and repeatable that it could be successfully replicated by a third party. The discipline of building a “franchise-ready” business is transformative. It forces a founder to confront the root causes of their operational chaos.

The return of corporate deals, such as fresh listings at the Nairobi bourse, bond issuances and mergers and acquisitions, has seen increased demand for investment banking licences that brokers were dumping over five years.

The Capital Markets Authority (CMA) issued at least three new investment bank licences in the first quarter of 2026 to advisory firms and stockbrokerage firms upgrading their work permits.

This has triggered a shift in the licensing regime in a market that has demand for permits dominated by investors seeking fund management licenses on the back of pooled investments like money market funds (MMFs).

It also marked a reversal witnessed in the years between 2011 and 2019, where investment banking firms downgraded their licences to stockbrokers following a draught in deals amid higher permit fees.

But the return of the deals has made the market fertile, forcing advisory firms and stockbrokers to seek investment banking licenses-which they need to broker and guide deals.

The recent initial public offering of the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC), which saw the first payout of a success fee to the lead adviser, and the issuances of corporate bonds by Safaricom, EABL and I and M, have signalled the ramp-up in deal activity for investment firms.

Investment banks cover a wider mandate, including advising on offers of securities to the public, corporate financial restructuring, takeovers, mergers, privatization and the underwriting of securities.

The institutions can also engage in the business of stockbrokers, a dealer and a fund manager of collective investment schemes.

‘Between 2019 and 2025, we did not see a lot of advisory transactions. Now we are seeing a lot of advisory opportunities returning,’ said Mr Eric Ruenji, the chairman of Theo Capital Holdings.

The drought in corporate deals coincided with the depths of the near decade-long bear market that began in 2015, sending stock prices and overall market enthusiasm lower.

The bear run was edged out in late 2024 as macro-economic stability gave rise to an equities rally and a rise in market interest. In the opening months of 2026, CMA dished out three new investment bank licences to firms including Rock Advisors, Victoria Wealth Management and Fintrust Securities.

This followed the issuance of a similar license to TPXM Global Kenya Limited in the third quarter of 2025.

Securities Africa Kenya Limited, now Capital A Investment Bank, also recently upgraded from a stock brokerage to an investment bank.

The issuance of the licences was amid a strong market performance for NSE equities, whose peak was defined by the public offering of KPC shares in March this year.

Corporate bond issuances have also taken hold, including medium note programmes (MTNs) by EABL, which raised Sh16.7 billion.

Safaricom, I and M Bank and the Kenya Mortgage Refinancing Company (KMRC) are some of the bonds that have also come to market in recent months, raising Sh19.9 billion, Sh13 billion, and Sh3 billion, respectively.

The frequency of the high-value deals are generating outsized advisory and performance fees.

The pipeline IPO, which raised Sh106.3 billion from the sale of the State’s 65 percent stake in the company, earned the Faida Investment Bank, who were the lead transaction adviser, a Sh1.16 billion bonus for hitting the target.

Fincorp Credit, the parent firm of Fincorp Securities, which is the latest firm to get the lucrative license, says the approval has been driven by clients’ demands for broader capital market solutions.

‘After being licensed as an authorized securities dealer in July last year, Fintrust Securities quickly discovered that customer appetite extended well beyond its initial offerings. From equities to money market products, demand for broader capital-market solutions was unmistakable,’ said Mr Gibson Wachaga, Fincorp Credit chief executive officer.

‘Securing the investment bank license is therefore both a response to market realities and a natural progression in Fincorp’s journey.’

Players like Kestrel Capital closed their investment banking section in 2021 to concentrate on the stock brokerage business amid the drought in advisory services.

This publication has confirmed that the stock brokerage is now working to regain the investment bank license as it sees a rise in corporate deals.

The push for the licence by Kestrel and peers will be incentivized by the recent revision in the minimum paid-

up capital of investment banks from Sh250 million at present to Sh150 million by December 2026.

Higher capital requirements at the start of the last decade in 2011 forced some players to revert to stock brokerages, while others applied to the CMA for the revocation of licences.

Investment banks like ApexAfrica Capital Limited, Afrika Investment Bank Limited, Drummond Investment Bank Limited, Kestrel Capital and Sterling Investment Bank downgraded their licenses after the minimum capital was raised from Sh30

million to Sh250 million.

Sterling Capital (formerly Sterling Investment Bank) has since reestablished itself as an investment bank. CMA has licensed 20 investment banks at present.

The National Social Security Fund (NSSF) is seeking a consultant to review the adequacy of its contribution rates and develop a framework for periodic revisions, signalling possible future changes to mandatory pension deductions for Kenyan workers and employers.

The NSSF, which is now Kenya’s largest public pension scheme managing billions of shillings in retirement savings, is seeking an actuarial firm to assess and advise on periodical adjustments to membership contribution amounts.

Search for the consultant comes months after the latest increment in NSSF contribution rates in February to a maximum of Sh6, 480 from Sh200 per worker in 2022. It will rise further to a maximum of Sh8, 640 next year.

The higher payouts have coincided with a five-year period that has seen salary increases lag inflation or cost of living measure.

The NSSF did not indicate if the review of the contributions will lead to an increase or a cut.

‘In order to comply with the provisions of the Retirement Benefits Act and to enhance the quality of the operational, financial, investment and solvency management of NSSF, the Fund invites proposals from actuarial firms interested in providing consultancy for actuarial and investment advisory services to the Board of Trustees,’ the fund said in the tender document.

The selected firm will also be required to provide advisory support to the Board of Trustees on financial and operational matters, including strengthening the fund’s capacity to monitor appointed fund managers, custodians, and other investment service providers.

The consultancy will further be expected to advise on key areas such as the interest rate credited to members’ accounts, the management of reserve funds, and the review of the fund’s broader investment policies and strategic asset allocation decisions.

The request comes at a time Kenyan workers are facing rising statutory deductions, including the housing levy and contributions to the Social Health Authority, which have collectively reduced disposable incomes for many salaried employees.

The NSSF Act of 2013, which had faced years of legal challenges from employers over its impact on payroll costs and take-home pay, was eventually rolled out in stages, culminating in higher monthly deductions for employees earning above set thresholds.

Under the revised structure, monthly contributions rose from Sh200 per month under the old regime to a maximum of Sh6,480 for employees in higher income brackets of more than Sh100,000.

Actuarial reviews are central to pension governance and typically assess whether current contribution rates are sufficient to meet future benefit obligations.

These assessments take into account variables such as life expectancy, wage growth, inflation, and expected investment returns, and may ultimately inform recommendations to increase, reduce, or maintain contribution levels.

Consistent review of contribution rates, according to NSSF, is intended to ensure the fund remains financially sustainable while fulfilling its mandate of providing income security in retirement.

Proponents of the higher NSSF rates reckon that they stand to ease the growing old age poverty.

Old age poverty has significant social implications in a country where the traditional patterns of the young caring for the old are changing.

Analysts point out that the relatively low number of Kenyans saving for pension and the value of payouts at retirement have compelled many retirees or those approaching the legal retirement age of 60 to continue working.

Kenya also suffers from low pension coverage with more than 70 percent of Kenyans retiring without a pension, save for the less than sufficient payout from the NSSF.

The NSSF’s monthly contributions stood at Sh400, including the Sh200 matched by the employers, for years and the fund on average paid out less than Sh250,000 when a member retired.

Kenyans on average are living longer and the rank of the elderly poor is rising as the traditional social fabric – which consisted of a large extended family to fall back on in the rural areas – yields to the forces of rapid urbanisation and changing social and family trends.

This is what prompted the State to start a monthly stipend of Sh2,000 for those above 70 years to cushion them from old-age poverty.

The consultancy could also pave the way for more structured and periodic reviews of contribution rates in future, potentially reopening debate over the balance between strengthening retirement savings and protecting

Every major infrastructure revolution eventually produces its gatekeepers. Railroads did. Oil did. Telecommunications did. The digital economy is unlikely to be different.

What changes across time is not the underlying pattern, but the form power takes. In the late 19th century, America confronted the dominance of railroads because they controlled the routes through which goods, people and markets moved.

A farmer, trader or manufacturer could be economically free in theory, but dependent in practice on the terms set by a dominant rail corporation. Standard Oil followed by consolidating control over the systems through which oil was refined, transported and distributed.

Later came AT and T and telephone networks. Then came Microsoft’s dominance in operating systems, which reshaped the entire software industry. In each case, the dominance was not only over a product, it was over the road to the customer.

The lesson here is not that large companies are automatically bad. Many became dominant because they built superior products, invested early and served customers efficiently. The problem begins when control over infrastructure becomes control over market access itself. That is the question now confronting the digital economy.

A small number of firms now sit at the centre of cloud computing, search, app distribution, online advertising, social media, digital payments and more recently, artificial intelligence. Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft do not just sell digital services. They shape the conditions under which other businesses operate. Kenya lives inside this reality.

A retailer depends on advertising systems whose pricing and rules it does not control. A media business depends on search rankings and recommendation algorithms it does not control.

A bank that runs a significant share of its retail flows is dependent on infrastructure controlled elsewhere in the market. An insurer building underwriting tools on an external cloud provider depends on systems, service terms and outage risks it does not control.

Businesses remain independent in law. They become dependent in operation. The November 2025 anti-trust case brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Meta illustrates how difficult it becomes to regulate digital dominance once markets begin shifting beneath regulators.

The FTC argued that Meta maintained monopoly power through anticompetitive acquisitions, most notably Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta’s defence was revealing. The company argued the market the regulators were trying to define no longer existed in the form they had imagined. Facebook and Instagram, it maintained, now compete with TikTok and YouTube in a broader battle for attention shaped by short-form video and algorithm-driven content.

The court ruled in Meta’s favour, accepting that digital markets had evolved beyond the narrower ‘personal social networking’ market the FTC had attempted to isolate.

The deeper issue is that digital infrastructure shifts form faster than regulation adapts. Railroads, pipelines and telephone networks were relatively easy to identify. Digital systems are more fluid. Social networks become video platforms.

Search companies become AI companies. E-commerce firms become cloud providers. App stores become payment gatekeepers. Cloud firms become foundations on which AI systems are built. By the time regulators define the market, the market may already have moved.

Kenya should therefore not attempt to copy American antitrust law mechanically. Our institutions, markets and development priorities are different.

That notwithstanding, the historical pattern matters. Every major infrastructure revolution produces gatekeepers before law and policy effectively adapt. The response should be strategic preparedness, not hostility to technology.

Regulators will need the analytical capacity to understand switching costs, platform dependency, cloud concentration and data control as structural economic questions. Procurement officers should understand that adopting a cloud, payments or AI system is rarely just a purchase decision. It is often the beginning of a long-term operational dependency.

General counsel will need to read technology contracts the way previous generations read infrastructure concessions or joint-venture agreements.

The next generation of monopoly questions may not involve a single railway line or telephone network. They may involve quieter systems: cloud infrastructure, payment rails, recommendation algorithms, app permissions and AI models. These are harder to see and govern, which is precisely why they accumulate power.

For Kenya, the real test will be whether the country can build the legal, commercial and institutional capacity to manage dependency before it hardens into vulnerability.

History does not warn us against innovation, it warns us against discovering too late that the infrastructure of opportunity has become the architecture of control.

Banks are wooing customers with free interbank transfers of up to Sh1,000 and a flat Sh20 fee on higher-value transactions, in a fresh push to capture a bigger share of person-to-person payments.

The tariff represents a discount from the current charges of up to Sh250 that customers have been paying for Pesalink transfers, depending on the transaction value. The discounted price applies to any transaction from a participating bank to another bank, sacco or fintech wallet.

Pesalink CEO Gituku Kirika said 10 banks, including KCB Bank, DTB, SBM Bank Kenya and Ecobank, have so far agreed on the discounted tariff, with talks ongoing to onboard more in a development that is set to encourage more person-to-person deals.

The initiative, dubbed ‘Tuma Direct na Mbao,’ signals a coordinated effort by lenders to make bank-based transfers more attractive at a time when mobile money platforms continue to dominate everyday payments.

Mr Kirika said the pricing overhaul is part of a broader strategy to make digital payments affordable, predictable and easier for consumers.

‘We have been championing for a long time the reduction of the cost of payments and also the standardisation of it so that it is easier for consumers to understand what they are paying. We are talking to more players so that it becomes an industry-wide price that can ride on volumes,’ he said.

Other banks that have rolled out the discounted tariff are Paramount Bank, Credit Bank, Prime Bank, Credit Bank, Bank of Baroda and GT Bank. The arrangement has also attracted two microfinance banks (MFBs) namely Choice MFB and Caritas MFB.

Under the new model, transfers of up to Sh1,000 will be free, while any amount above that up to Sh999,999 will attract a flat Sh20 fee regardless of value. The new tariff will mark a shift from tiered pricing that has traditionally characterised bank transfers.

‘Today we see banks charging as high as Sh250 for a Pesalink transaction depending on the amount. So, coming down to a flat fee of Sh20 is a drastic reduction,’ Mr Kirika said.

The discounted tariff comes as banks seek to claw back transaction volumes from mobile money services, particularly in the person-to-person segment where convenience and cost have historically tilted the market in favour of Safaricom despite its much higher fees.

While Pesalink itself does not compete directly with mobile money providers, Mr Kirika noted that its participating institutions -including banks, Saccos, fintechs and telcos- are increasingly competing for the same customer transactions.

‘We are a switch that sits in the middle of the payments ecosystem. We are not in competition with mobile money players but our participants are. What we seek to do is to move money efficiently between all of them,’ he said.

Pesalink, operated by Integrated Payment Services Limited under the Kenya Bankers Association, has evolved into an instant payment switch connecting more than 195 financial institutions, including banks, saccos and fintech wallets. The platform is also expanding its reach to telcos as part of a broader push towards interoperability.

Currently, the system processes over one million transactions monthly, with the value of daily transactions being between Sh5 billion and Sh6 billion. The bulk of these transactions-more than 90 percent-remain within the banking sector, according to Mr Kirika.

‘Pricing is very critical to utilisation. When payments were zero-rated, we saw a significant increase in volumes, and when charges came back, growth slowed,’ he said.

Pesalink is also working to simplify transactions, particularly in addressing the complexity associated with bank transfers that require detailed account information.

Mr Kirika said Pesalink plans to roll out an enhanced service that will allow users to send money using familiar identifiers such as mobile phone numbers or identity card numbers instead of bank account details that are cumbersome to master.

‘When you are moving money into a bank account, you need a significant amount of information… We are going to enhance the service so that consumers can use something simpler like a phone number,’ Mr Kirika said.

Kenya’s pension industry is sitting on a financial powerhouse that could transform the country’s economy, but a substantial portion of it remains largely untapped for productive investment.

Today, pension assets in Kenya have grown to Sh2.81 trillion, equivalent to 16.05 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, according to the latest industry data from the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA).

In 2025 alone, the industry added Sh554 billion in assets, reflecting annual growth of 25 percent. This growth has been driven by the savings of millions of Kenyan workers and continued implementation of the NSSF Act, which has steadily in-

creased contributions into retirement schemes.

But beneath this growth story lies a major structural imbalance. More than half of all pension assets, about Sh1.47 trillion or 52 percent of the industry portfolio, is invested in government securities. Another 18.6 percent sits in guaranteed funds.

But private equity accounts for only 1.1 percent of pension assets, despite regulations allowing schemes to allocate

up to 10 per cent to the asset class.

This means Kenya is leaving a massive investment opportunity on the table. Within the current regulatory framework alone, pension schemes could unlock an estimated Sh209 billion in additional investments into private equity and venture capital without changing any laws.

At a time when businesses are struggling with expensive credit, startups are fighting for survival and youth unemployment remains one of the biggest economic threats, this untapped pool of long-term capital could be one of the most powerful engines for economic transformation.

Globally, pension funds are increasingly being used as long-term growth capital to finance businesses, infrastructure and innovation. According to the International Monetary Fund, global pension savings reached $63.1 trillion by end of 2023,

nearly three times higher than two decades ago.

Countries that have successfully mobilised pension capital have demonstrated what is possible.

In Australia, pension assets are now larger than the country’s GDP and play a major role in financing infrastructure and private enterprise, according to Pension Markets in Focus 2024-2025 by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In the United States, pension funds are among the largest institutional investors in venture capital and private equity, helping businesses scale into global companies.

Namibia introduced mandatory allocations to unlisted investments in 2014 and has since built a growing domestic private equity ecosystem.

Ghana has also expanded pension investment into alternative assets to support local economic growth.

The RBA data shows private equity investments grew by 49.2 percent in the second half of 2025 to reach nearly Sh30 billion. Pension schemes are already investing in strategic sectors through vehicles such as the Africa50 Infrastructure Fund among others.

At the same time, listed corporate bonds surged from Sh3.8 billion to Sh28.3 billion, driven largely by infrastructure-backed investments such as the LINZI Infrastructure Asset-Backed Security that is financing the Talanta Sports Stadium.

They show pension schemes are beginning to shift towards more productive long-term investments that support economic development while still generating returns for members.

Most alternative investment assets have room for growth under the current statutory limits; and this is where real opportunity lies.

Kenya’s pension industry is heavily concentrated in four traditional asset classes that account for more than 90 percent of all pension assets.

While government securities provide stability, excessive concentration limits the broader economic role pension capital can play. Long-term pension money is suited for sectors that require patient capital like manufacturing, affordable housing, agriculture, healthcare and clean energy.

Kenya’s pension industry is already financially stable enough to support prudent diversification.

The RBA report show that pension schemes currently maintain a liquidity ratio of 71 per cent, indicating strong capacity to meet short- and medium-term financial obligations.

Pension money should not simply sit on the sidelines financing government consumption while businesses struggle for capital. It should help finance industries, infrastructure, innovation and enterprises that create jobs and build long-term prosperity.

A majority of shops and businesses remained closed yesterday in Nairobi and major towns in the country following protests and a nationwide public transport strike over fuel price hikes, triggering billions of shillings in losses.

Key roads in Nairobi remained largely empty, forcing some commuters to walk to work, with other parts of the country like Nakuru, Mombasa and Eldoret also affected by the transport crisis.

Businesses in parts of Nairobi remained shut, and schools asked students to stay at home, leading to revenue losses for enterprises and county governments.

In Nairobi and elsewhere across the country, police clashed with protesters, using tear gas to disperse them.

This came amid reports of demonstrators stopping and harassing some motorists.

Kenya’s fuel prices hit a record high on Friday, with the diesel price increasing by 23.5 percent to Sh242.92 a litre in Nairobi and petrol by 8.0 percent to Sh214.25, ushering in pain to businesses and households from record inflation.

Policy pressure

President William Ruto, who has been out of the country, is yet to comment on the new prices, and is expected to make a call to increase subsidies or make further tax cuts to ease the burden on households and businesses and curb protests in the months to the elections.

Kenya has hinged part of its response on a Sh75 billion in emergency funding from the World Bank, it has sought to help it manage the economic shocks triggered by the Iran war.

‘I am sure as a government we will sit again when the President comes back and convenes the Executive. He will have to look at what else we can do about the fuel prices,’ Treasury Cabinet Secretary Mbadi said on Monday morning.

But Mr Mbadi fell short of disclosing whether the intervention will include a cut in taxes, an increase in subsidies or both.The high cost of fuel is being blamed for increases in the price of food and other basic goods and services, with public service vehicle operators already raising commuter fares.

Last month, the government cut value-added tax (VAT) on fuel from 16 percent to 8.0 percent until July, but there have been calls for it to do more.

It has also offered subsidies to curb sharp increases, especially of petrol and diesel, but the fund it has used to offer below-market-price fuel is facing depletion.

This has increased calls for the State to unleash more public money to help businesses with fuel bills.

Many governments, from Europe to Africa and Asia, have already introduced a ?raft of funding measures, including fuel price caps and tax cuts, to try to contain the Iran war’s economic fallout.

The proposed changes are viewed as temporary, introduced specifically to ?address the energy outcome of the Iran war.

Regional response

South Africa cut fuel levy on petrol and diesel from April, while Zambia temporarily suspended excise duty on fuel and lowered VAT on the commodity to zero in order to shield citizens from the skyrocketing fuel prices.

Namibia reduced fuel taxes by half while Comoros suspended new fuel levies that were introduced last week.

Industry lobby Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) on Monday sought urgent State intervention targeting a string of taxes and levies loaded on fuel prices.

‘The government should consider reviewing various fuel-related taxes and levies to ease pressure on the economy and protect the competitiveness and productivity of local manufacturers,’ KAM said in a statement.

‘Such measures would play a critical role in lowering the cost of commodities, stabilising supply chains, and supporting broader economic recovery.’

Subsidy strain

An analysis shows that taxes and levies account for 34.5 percent in every litre of petrol and 28 percent of a litre of diesel, compared to 40 percent and 36 percent respectively last month, following the halving of VAT to 8.0 percent.

The Roads Maintenance Levy (RML) is the single biggest duty on fuel at Sh25 per litre of petrol and diesel, followed by VAT, excise duty, Petroleum Development Levy (PDL), Railway Development Levy and the Import Declaration Fee.

Mr Mbadi said that the government had lost an estimated Sh24 billion in fuel taxes due to the halving of VAT to eight percent from April 15.

He reckoned that only Sh5 billion is remaining in the Petroleum Development Levy, which is used for fuel subsidies and is collected from motorists at the rate of Sh5.40 per litre of petrol and diesel.

The government announced that Sh6.2 billion was used to subsidise fuel prices in the monthly cycle ending April 14, and a further Sh5 billion in the current round ending May 14.

Kenya, like many other African countries, relies heavily on fuel imports from the Gulf, a supply route disrupted by the US-Israel conflict with Iran that began on February 28.

Even though a ceasefire has been declared, fuel prices have remained high as the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil passes, is still blocked.

Kenya imports nearly all of its fuel products from the Middle East via government-to-government deals with Gulf suppliers, including Saudi Aramco Trading Fujairah, Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC Global Trading Ltd, and Emirates National ?Oil Company Singapore Ltd.

Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who joined the opposition after his impeachment in October 2024, has blamed the sharp rise on corrupt businesspeople who want to increase their profit margins.

He compared the fuel prices to those in neighbouring landlocked countries that rely on Kenyan ports for the importation of fuel, such as Uganda, where prices are lower.

Kenya serves as a major transport hub for businesspeople importing goods through the port of Mombasa to be ferried by road.

Aramco Trading Fujairah (ATF) has written to Kenya, stating that its sourcing of petroleum products from ‘other locations’ has come at higher costs, which it would pass on to Kenya, a pointer that the prices would rise further without State intervention.

Inflation rose to 5.6 percent ?year-on-year in April from 4.4 percent a month earlier on costly fuel, making it the fastest rise in seven years.

Update: EPRA, on Monday night, reduced diesel prices by Sh10.06 to Sh232.86 per litre, kerosene rose by Sh38.60 to retail at Sh191.38 per litre in Nairobi, while the cost of petrol remained unchanged.

The Court of Appeal has set aside an undertaking directing Imperial Bank of Kenya (IBL) to pay Mombasa tycoons Ashok Doshi and Amit A. Doshi about Sh1 billion, as they seek to recover deposits from the collapsed lender.

A three-judge bench faulted the High Court judge for ruling that a consent recorded in July 2016 bound IBL and Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) to pay the depositors if they succeeded in their case.

The appellate court said that from the moment IBL was placed under receivership, a moratorium on all payments to, or preferential treatment of, depositors and other creditors outside the framework of the law took effect and remained in force.

‘It is also not lost on us that section 56(3) of the Act is emphatic that no attachment, garnishment, execution or other method of enforcement of a judgment or order against an institution placed under liquidation, or its assets, may take place or continue,’ the court stated.

The court emphasized that sections 33 and 57 of the Act clearly define the framework for payment of claims by the liquidation agent. The provisions do not classify debts owed to depositors who have filed claims in court, or those with secured judgments, as eligible for priority over other creditors.

‘Those principles apply in equal measure to the winding up and liquidation of banking institutions as was the case here. In our considered view, the learned Judge erred in granting the impugned orders with the aim of breathing new life into the terms of the consent agreement entered into when the 2nd appellant (IBL) was still in receivership,’ the court said.

The court added that any undertaking by IBL after being placed under liquidation would violate section 56(3) of the Act.

In November 2022, the High Court had allowed the Doshi brothers’ application that IBL should not be placed under liquidation until CBK and IBL deposited $7,277,314 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of their advocates as security.

Alternatively, the court ruled that CBK should undertake to pay the depositors if they won the case.

Mr Andrew Rutto, a liquidation agent at the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC), stated in an affidavit that the High Court’s orders amounted to granting preferential treatment to Mr Doshi. He said depositors are required by law to lodge and prove their claims with the liquidator, as provided under section 33 of the KDIC Act.

Mr Doshi opposed this, arguing that CBK was avoiding giving the undertaking to allow IBL’s liquidation to proceed, leaving only a shell incapable of paying them if they prevailed.

‘In our considered view, the learned Judge erred in granting leave to the 1st and 2nd (Doshi) applicants to have subsequent applications and the main suit heard when Imperial Bank was still in liquidation,’ the appellate court said.

The payment of Sh244.5 billion to the Treasury for the sale of a 15 percent stake in Safaricom Plc to the parent firm, Vodacom Group, will take longer after the High Court extended a freeze on the transaction.

A bench of three judges of the High Court ruled that plans for the sale of the Safaricom stake should await the determination of the petitions filed by four Kenyans.

The court dismissed claims by the government that stopping the transaction would affect investor confidence.

‘Consequently, we do not buy into the argument that a constitutional adjudication automatically results in loss of confidence by investors,’ the judges said.

‘Such an argument, if accepted by this court, would lead to immunity from judicial review for public dealings because those dealings are economically motivated. That argument would run the supremacy of the Constitution afoul,’ the judges added.

Court setback

Vodacom had indicated readiness to wire the billions of shillings to Kenya in anticipation that the High Court would lift the freeze on the deal.

This means that the deal will drag on, putting the State in line to receive a Sh16 billion dividend from the 15 percent stake if Kenya remains with full ownership of 35 percent into August.

The pause on the transaction has delayed the payment of Sh244.5 billion to the Treasury, including Sh40.2 billion in advanced dividends from what would be the government’s residual 20 percent stake in the Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm.

‘We expect an update on this ruling on May 18, 2026. Pending this outcome, we’ll be able to finalise the deal very quickly,’ said Vodacom chief executive officer Shameel Joosub in a May 11 earnings call.

‘If the conservatory orders are not lifted, the court case will continue, and it could take a few more months. So, we are a little bit in the court’s hands, and we will see what the court decides,’ he added.

The transaction was frozen when petitioners Tony Gachoka and Fredrick Ogola sued several State agencies, Safaricom and Vodacom, questioning the legality of the government’s plan to reduce its stake in the telecoms giant.

The government defended the process, saying the proceeds of sales would be invested in an infrastructure fund and utilised prudently for public goods, and reduce the country’s debt burden.

It reckoned that the petitioners sought to stop a statutory-mandated process under Section 87A of the Public Finance Management Act and that the sale had already gone through a parliamentary process and public participation.

The judges, however, said that while they appreciated the importance of economic stability and investor certainty, constitutional compliance cannot be subordinated to commercial convenience.

‘A quick reminder is that investor confidence in a constitutional democracy like ours is not founded upon the unchecked exercise of public power, but upon the assurance that the government acts within the confines of the Constitution and the law,’ said the court.

The court case was filed as analysts and politicians debated the merits of the government’s partial divestment from Safaricom, with a major issue being whether the State will get full value from the sale price of Sh34 per share.

Some argue that the deal is good for Kenya, while others have been sceptical about the benefits of the transaction, seeing Vodacom as the winner after getting majority control of the profitable telecoms operator.

A joint parliamentary committee had approved the sale, paving the way for the conclusion of the transaction before the litigants struck.

Deal economics

Under the deal, the Treasury is to receive Sh204.3 billion for the 15 percent stake, representing a price of Sh34 per share.

The exchequer is also to receive a Sh40.2 billion dividend top-up, representing a loan backed by what will be Kenya’s remaining 20 percent stake in Safaricom.

The delayed sale, which had been expected to close before March, will see the Treasury collect Sh16.1 billion, representing its share of final dividends from its current 35 percent stake when book closure happens on August 4, if the transaction remains on pause.

Vodacom has insisted that the completion of the stake purchase fully rests on the court decision.

Concurrent to the purchase of the 15 percent stake from the government, Vodacom is also buying a five percent stake in Safaricom that is held by its parent firm, Vodafone Group, at the same price of Sh34 per share.

Once the twin deals are sealed, Vodacom will raise its ownership in the telecoms operator to 55 percent, attaining majority control.

Funding limbo

Earlier in May, Safaricom raised its per share final dividend to Sh1.15 from Sh0.65 previously after its net profit rose 67 percent to Sh95.6 billion.

The government’s share of dividends from Safaricom for the period to the end of March, including an interim dividend of Sh0.85 per share, is Sh28.04 billion.

Proceeds from the transaction are expected to flow to the National Infrastructure Fund (NIF), a vehicle designed to finance large-scale infrastructure expansion, including roads, railways, energy and water systems.

The Treasury indicated that there was no pressure to rush the deal as the funding is not a pressing budget issue.

The recent debate surrounding French President Emmanuel Macron asking attendees at an Africa-France summit to maintain silence while speakers addressed the room, sparked a deeper conversation far beyond conference etiquette.

To some, it symbolised colonial arrogance; to others, it was a call for order and professionalism. But perhaps the real issue is not Mr Macron.

May be the issue is Africa’s growing difficulty in balancing historical awareness with present-day accountability.

History undeniably matters. Great African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, Thomas Sankara and Nelson Mandela existed within complex geopolitical realities shaped by foreign interests, ideological battles, economic competition and global power structures.

To deny this entirely would be intellectually dishonest. But there is another danger emerging across parts of the continent: the temptation to explain every present dysfunction exclusively through external interference. At some point, a society must ask itself difficult internal questions.

Not every challenge is colonialism. Not every criticism is oppression.

Not every disorder is externally orchestrated. Sometimes accountability is necessary. Even conversations around xenophobia reveal this tension. Increasingly, there are narratives suggesting that Africans are merely being manipulated into hating one another by hidden external powers.

While external influence can exist in global politics, reducing all internal conflict to outside manipulation risks removing personal and collective responsibility entirely.

Nations are not only destroyed by oppression. They are also weakened by corruption, tribalism, institutional fragility, emotional reactionism, poor leadership culture, and the inability to self-correct. True liberation, therefore, cannot remain purely political rhetoric.

It must also become: mental, structural, economic, institutional, and spiritual.

A continent cannot rise globally while rejecting discipline, professionalism, emotional maturity and accountability in public spaces.

The future of Africa will not be built merely by identifying who hurt us, it will be built by deciding who we are becoming.