Category: Business Daily

Many of the professionals I coach work for organisations with generous wellness programmes. Few use them. Their concern is not the kind of support available, but whether what they share will remain confidential.

As the world observes World Mental Health Day on October 10, much of the conversation will focus on workplace wellness programmes as a solution to mental health risks.

While these interventions are good, they may not address the underlying root cause of the problem. The real threat to mental health is not lack of wellness programmes but a lack of trust.

Trust is built by leaders and boards. A culture of trust empowers employees to engage openly and healthily in the workplace. Employees are the face of the organisation, and their conduct reflects its brand and reputation.

The mental health of employees influences how they engage with stakeholders and, consequently, how the organisational culture is perceived.

As a certified Leadership and Growth Coach, I have observed some causes of mental health challenges that affect professionals in pursuit of career and personal growth. These include difficulties in personal relationships, financial pressures and health-related concerns.

Employees often avoid workplace wellness programmes due to concerns about confidentiality. They suffer in silence which later manifests as declining performance, wellbeing and disengagement.

According to Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2026, only 21 percent of Kenyan employees are engaged at work which was comparable to 19 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa and 20 percent globally.

Low employee engagement was estimated to cost organisations and economies approximately $10 trillion (Sh1,290 trillion) annually in lost productivity. The low engagement was attributable to weak trust in leadership, inadequate communication and lack of belief in the organisation’s direction. This undermines mental health and wellbeing interventions adopted by the organisation.

Similarly, a regulatory investigation into the Boeing 737 Max in 2024 revealed how a lack of trust in leadership discouraged employees from speaking up which led to a deteriorating safety culture. This increased scrutiny over the board and management and specific governance reforms which included increased employee involvement programs.

In contrast, Hilton’s 2026 research found that high trust and engagement drive stronger business performance, with engaged companies achieving 18 percent higher productivity and 23 percent greater profitability.

Trust, not wellness programmes, is the cornerstone of a healthy workplace culture and the key to addressing mental health risks. Leaders and boards should foster a culture of trust where employees feel supported, empowered to speak up and thrive.

Leaders and boards are responsible for setting the right culture within the organisation.

Improving employee trust requires deliberate actions such as use of an independent, external counselling provider, training managers to recognize distress and respond without judgement and adoption of a clear no-retaliation policy for those raising concerns.

Leaders and boards should also conduct surveys on levels of trust in leadership, employee engagement, and speak-up culture, and address emerging concerns in a timely manner.

It could be argued that managing mental and psychological wellbeing is ultimately a personal responsibility, and that employers have limited influence over personal challenges.

However, as Dr. Martin Oduor-Otieno highlights in his book, The Humanized Leader, organizations have a responsibility to lead with empathy and humanity.

Given that employees spend at least 40 hours each week at work, the workplace plays a significant role in shaping their experiences, wellbeing, and overall quality of life.

The High Court has quashed notices issued earlier this year seeking interested buyers for Nairobi’s 14 Riverside Drive, which houses DusitD2 hotel.

The court ruled that the process Synergy Industrial Credit and Moran Auctioneers followed in the proposed public auction, scheduled for May 26, was defective and invalid.

However, the judge said Synergy is free to issue fresh notices and execution documents, provided they comply with the law.

‘I have carefully considered the material record. I find that contrary to Synergy’s submission, the execution instruments relied upon were defective,’ the judge said.

Synergy Industrial Credit said it would appeal the decision.

The court identified several defects in the execution process, including the failure to properly state the reserve price.

Under the Auctioneers Rules, a warrant for the sale of immovable property must include the reserve price for each separate parcel of land, based on a professional valuation conducted not more than 12 months before the proposed sale.

The court also found that the sale documents failed to disclose registered encumbrances, as required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

‘In the present case, the warrant marked encumbrances as NA (not applicable or not available), omitting the four registered long leases,’ the judge said.

The court said the requirement for a reserve price is intended to safeguard against property being sold at an undervalue.

‘Consequently, the notification of sale and warrants of sale alongside the auctioneer’s notice and advertisement are invalid and must be set aside,’ the court ruled.

The judge said Cape Holdings remains the registered proprietor of the property until a sale is lawfully completed. ‘The notification of sale in respect is set aside for lack of compliance with the procedure. The respondent (Synergy) is at liberty to issue execution documents strictly complying with the law.’

The dispute stems from Synergy’s efforts to recover a debt arising from an arbitral award of Sh1.66 billion, which has since grown to about Sh10.7 billion due to accumulated interest.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 agreement under which Cape Holdings agreed to sell office space in the 14 Riverside development to Synergy for Sh703.2 million.

The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid to stop Co-operative Bank from pursuing 10 disputed homes linked to a Sh1.39 billion debt owed by a real estate development company, Loneview Developers Ltd.

A three-judge bench dismissed Mathew Musau’s application for an injunction, saying his intended appeal would not be rendered worthless if protection was denied.

He moved to the Court of Appeal after the Environment and Land Court in July 2024 refused to protect the 10 units at Loneview Estate he claimed as his, and he wanted the appellate court to preserve those properties while he pursued an appeal.

The dispute centres on a parcel of land in Syokimau, LR No. 12916, registered to Loneview Developers and charged to Co-op Bank for Sh1 billion. The bank told the court that Sh1.39 billion was outstanding as at October 26, 2023.

Mr Musau claims Suraya Property Group Limited surrendered the 10 homes to him under a settlement deal after it failed to complete payment for land previously owned by his family.

The property was initially registered as LR No. 7149/24 in the name of Sebastian Kathilu, Mr Musau’s father. He told the court that Peter Muraya of Suraya approached him on July 24, 2008, with a proposal to develop maisonettes on the land through a joint venture.

The arrangement later changed from a joint venture into an outright sale, with Mr Musau and his father each expected to receive Sh45 million. After payment problems, the parties entered a September 12, 2015 settlement under which Mr Musau took 10 units. The housing project is located in Syokimau, Machakos County.

He says the units were to be discharged from the bank’s security so that he could assume full ownership. Co-op Bank rejected that position and issued notices to tenants occupying the homes.

Co-op Bank says it was not a party to the arrangements between Mr Musau and Suraya and that those agreements cannot defeat its rights as financier. It argued that the arrangements would in any event be a nullity in the face of the original and subsequent mortgage finance facilities it granted to Loneview, the developer.

‘A copy of the Certificate of Title Grant No. I.R. 130518 in respect to land reference 12916 (the suit property) shows that it is registered in the name of Loneview Developers Limited,’ the appellate judges said.

The legal dispute started in 2023 after Mr Musau moved to the Environment and Land Court in Machakos, seeking orders to restrain the bank from interfering with, dealing with or entering the 10 units he claimed belonged to him.

The bank’s security arose from financing provided to Loneview for the development. The earlier Environment and Land Court ruling records a Sh500 million further mortgage facility granted in January 2014 and an escrow agreement in the bank’s favour, with apartment sale proceeds intended to help redeem the mortgage.

In July 2024, the Environment and Land Court dismissed Mr Musau’s application, finding that he had not established a strong case. It also held that the bank could exercise its statutory powers after Loneview defaulted.

Mr Musau then sought protection from the Court of Appeal pending his intended appeal. The appellate judges said such an application required him to show that his appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory without an injunction.

‘Even if we were to find that the intended appeal is arguable, still the motion is for refusal as it does not surmount the second limb. Yet at the core of Mr Musau’s case, as can be gleaned from the agreement of September 12, 2015, is that it entered into the arrangement so as to secure ‘compensation’ from Suraya,’ the judges said.

They noted that his claim against Suraya was monetary in nature and, by extension, of similar character against the bank should it be adjudged that he has a legitimate claim against the bank.

Co-op Bank argued it could meet any award made against it if Mr Musau eventually succeeded. The court noted that he had not disputed the bank’s stated financial capacity.

‘In the circumstances, the intended appeal by Mr Musau is unlikely to be rendered nugatory even if the injunction sought is not granted,’ the judges ruled, dismissing his application.

Every serious investor, local or foreign, always seeks to enjoy secure land tenure rights, and the goodwill of neighbours. That assures stability of an undertaking and good buy-in from those with whom they have to co-exist.

This alone, apart from the text of law, should form an entry point for Lamu oil refinery investors. But let’s also turn to the implications of those who may have to vacate from the project site to pave way for the initiative.

Eviction is harsh. It’s a total overhaul of lifestyles. Most people only relate with it arbitrarily. Its raw nature involves packing up, with or without notice, and leaving what one has always considered home, and moving on to live in new spaces.

It interrupts social networks, existing means of livelihoods, gets children out of school, forces one to construct dwellings anew, and to have to reinvest in new social acquaintances. Eviction, even with compensation, is never to be celebrated. One, therefore, easily relates with the plight of those that have to leave the Lamu site, compensation notwithstanding.

Perhaps the reason our laws are quite clear where one has to vacate land for projects.

A businessperson who seeks to put their investment on privately owned land must negotiate and purchase it from affected proprietors at market rates. That’s straightforward.

However, when government seeks to have public infrastructure such as roads, airports, dams or railways constructed on or pass over private land, compulsory acquisition, commensurate and prompt compensation in accordance with the Land Act, must be done.

County executive member responsible for land moves the National Land Commission to process the acquisition where the project is county driven.

The Cabinet secretary responsible for lands handles such compulsory acquisition requests where the project belongs to the national government. Then the National Land Commission processes the compulsory acquisition and compensates the affected in accordance with the law.

But what then happens when land belongs to the county or national government? Would compensation arise? Usually no. But things changed quite a lot with the application of the Constitution in 2010.

While parts of Section 40 of the law provide that compensation shall not be due for any unlawfully acquired land, other parts of it provide that it may be made to occupants in good faith.

This complicates circumstances where citizens may hold claims over land that may have been converted to public while they held legitimate ancestral claims, as happened in parts of coast Kenya.

It should not be difficult for government, which one presumes provided entry rights to the Lamu oil refinery investment, to listen to and address the claims to the land earmarked for the new project.

And even if the claims turn out legitimate, compensating for the land affected, and the mundane developments thereon would be good practice, given the magnitude and importance of this project.

That will afford the project affected persons a new lease of life, while leaving the investor to enjoy a peaceable entry to the site, and the goodwill to run the investment into a long-term future.

Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) has been joined in a case in which a Kenyan firm is seeking more than half a billion shillings from Zakhem International Construction Company Limited over unpaid dues arising from the replacement of the Mombasa-Nairobi pipeline.

In a ruling on October 7, the High Court joined KPC as an interested party in the dispute between Azicon Kenya Limited and Zakhem, a Cyprus-registered firm. KPC is expected to provide information on payments it made to Zakhem for the project.

‘Kenya Pipeline Company Limited is joined as an interested party to state the current status of its payments made to Zakhem International Construction Limited, the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Respondent herein,’ the court said.

Now, KPC has 21 days to file its response, with the matter scheduled for mention on December 3.

Azicon was among firms subcontracted by Zakhem to undertake works during the replacement of the 450-kilometre Mombasa-Nairobi pipeline. The Kenyan firm said it was contracted to carry out electrical, instrumentation and telecommunication installation works for the project that Zakhem was undertaking for KPC.

Azicon is now seeking to establish whether KPC paid Zakhem all the amounts due under the main contract, arguing that the information is critical to the enforcement of its judgment against the contractor.

The firm told the court that it was in the interest of ‘justice, equity and conscience’ for KPC to participate in the proceedings and confirm the payments made to Zakhem.

Azicon claims that despite KPC making payments to Zakhem, the construction company has failed to settle its outstanding debt, leaving the Kenyan firm in financial hardship even though the works were completed, commissioned and are operational.

‘The Plaintiff/Decree Holder/Applicant (Azicon) has proved that Kenya Pipeline Company Limited has paid the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Respondent in full,’ the firm said in its application.

Azicon further accused Zakhem of frustrating efforts to realise the fruits of its judgment by disposing of or interfering with property that had already been lawfully attached.

‘That the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Respondent (Zakhem), acting in bad faith, concealed the fact that it received all the funds from Kenya Pipeline Company Limited in the partial decree,’ Azicon managing director David Kibet Tonui said.

Azicon said it was paid $6,509,502.66 after completion of the works but that Zakhem still owes it $4,160,857 (Sh540.4 million at current exchange rates).

The firm said there was evidence that Zakhem had received the payments from KPC but had declined to settle the outstanding amount despite being served with a court order.

KPC’s participation in the proceedings is expected to establish the payments made to Zakhem and whether the amounts linked to Azicon’s outstanding claim had been received by the contractor. Azicon moved to court and obtained an order on September 23, 2020, compelling Zakhem to pay the money. The firm then said it had evidence that Zakhem had received the full payment from KPC.

The latter filed a separate case seeking to liquidate Zakhem after sending a statutory demand on January 14, 2025.

In reply, Zakhem claimed that it was still waiting to be paid by KPC.

‘The debtor is deliberately and blatantly telling lies as there are two affidavits proving Kenya Pipeline Company Limited has paid the Debtor/ Applicant herein all amounts in HCCCE322 of 2019,’ Azicon said.

The Kenyan firm pointed out that there is an affidavit dated November 8, 2024, by Ibrahim Zak-hem stating that KPC was not holding any funds on its behalf. Another firm subcontracted by Zakhem International to execute the contract was also pursuing a debt of Sh670 million last year.

Multiple ICD (Kenya) Ltd had even obtained a court order freezing KPC’s bank accounts last year, but the freeze was lifted after it emerged that the oil company was not holding any money on behalf of Zakhem International.

Kenya lost Sh19.5 billion after Moody’s downgraded its credit to junk status in response to the Gen Z-led anti-budget protests in 2024, an arm of the African Union has revealed.

The Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a body under the African Union, disputed the downgrade, calling it unfair due to a lack of information and context.

The downgrade triggered a fall in the Kenyan shilling against the US dollar, and made it costly for the country to borrow in the foreign markets as financiers factored in the heightened credit risk.

The AU reckons that the losses from the costly borrowing and higher shilling cost the country $150 million (Sh19.5 billion).

The pan-African organisation cited the Kenyan case as one of the occasions that informed the launch of the continent’s first credit rating agency on Wednesday, seeking to provide an alternative to the “big three” global ratings agencies as debt burdens weigh on many African economies.

It reckons that the Africa Credit Rating Agency (AfCRA) – the creation of which African leaders endorsed in 2018 – will help investors to assess the continent’s investment risk better by offering investors more information and context

African leaders have long accused Western ratings agencies, including S and P, Moody’s and Fitch, of failing to fairly assess the risk of lending to African countries and of moving too quickly to downgrade them during crises such as conflicts and pandemics.

In Kenya, Moody’s downgraded the country’s sovereign rating, citing its inability to implement austerity measures due to withdrawal of the unpopular Finance Bill 2024.

It affirmed its ‘negative’ outlook for Kenya, stating that the larger fiscal deficits would push up borrowing requirements and subsequently increase government liquidity risks, triggering the AU protests.

Following the downgrade, the shilling depreciated from Sh124 to the dollar to Sh128, while Eurobond yields spiked from 7.2 percent to 9.1 percent.

‘We have done some very objective analysis on specific ratings that were being issued; for example, in Kenya in 2024, we disputed a rating that was issued by Moody’s, around June, within the euphoria of the Gen Z protest and the finance bill,’ said Dr Misheck Mutize, lead expert on credit ratings at APRM in an interview with Business Daily.

‘We thought that the rating was driven by euphoria rather than fundamentals. We did a policy note on the rating split on Kenya because there was a disparity in rating observations between two agencies, S and P and Moody’s. The estimated cost of that rating, which was accompanied by negative analyst commentary, was $150 million,’ he added.

President William Ruto was forced to shelve the Finance Bill 2024 on June, 26, 2024, following violent riots against the revenue-raising draft law, which sought to introduce taxes on cars, money transfers and bread.

The government instead opted to cut its tax collection target for the fiscal year ending June 2025 by Sh177 billion, even as it announced several budget cuts. “The downgrade of Kenya’s rating reflects significantly diminished capacity to implement revenue-based fiscal consolidation that would improve debt affordability and place debt on a downward trend,” said Moody’s in a credit rating assessment that came less than two weeks after the withdrawal of the Finance Bill.

Moody’s poured cold water on Kenya’s ability to pursue fiscal consolidation and austerity measures by cutting expenditure, noting that a big chunk of the spending items, which includes largely debt payments, are not discretionary and had to be paid.

The policy note from APRM reckons that the commentary by Moody’s eroded investor confidence, triggered an artificial market panic and significantly increased Kenya’s external financing costs, derailing Nairobi’s Eurobond buyback plan.

APRM notes the sudden rise in yields and investor caution undermined the feasibility of a planned buyback as Kenya faced a steep premium.

The experts at APRM link the Moody’s commentary to the Treasury being forced to increase its domestic borrowing and delayed fiscal consolidation.

Quickmart shoppers had accumulated Sh139 million worth of unredeemed loyalty points by the end of last year, highlighting the growing value of customer rewards schemes in Kenya’s supermarket business.

The retailer’s estimated liability for unredeemed loyalty points rose from Sh117 million in 2024 to Sh139 million at the end of December 2025, according to its financial disclosures seen by the Business Daily.

The points represent rewards earned by customers through purchases that can be redeemed for eligible products or discounts. Customers typically earn a set number of points for the money they spend, and these can later be exchanged for discounts, free products or preferential prices.

Loyalty schemes have become an important tool for supermarkets seeking to retain customers and encourage repeat purchases in a highly competitive retail market.

‘As at December 31, 2025, the estimated liability for unredeemed points was Sh139,070,000 (2024: Sh117,070,000),’ Quickmart said in its financial statements.

Beyond rewarding shoppers, loyalty schemes allow retailers to build profiles of customer purchasing patterns and use the data to tailor promotions and offers to individual shoppers.

The programmes can also encourage customers to increase the value or frequency of their purchases to earn more rewards. Kenya’s second-largest retail chain estimates the value of the outstanding points based on customers’ historical redemption patterns, the products available for redemption and shoppers’ preferences.

‘Any significant changes in customers’ redemption patterns will impact the estimated redemption rate,’ Quickmart said.

The value of loyalty points has previously emerged as a major issue when supermarket chains collapse.

Customers of Nakumatt Holdings lost access to nearly Sh2 billion worth of loyalty points after the retailer collapsed and creditors moved to liquidate the company in 2020.

The retailer was reported to still have about Sh1.8 billion worth of loyalty points owed to former customers, highlighting the financial exposure that loyalty programmes can create for both retailers and shoppers.

Following its 2015 financial woes, which saw it shut down most of its regional and local branches, Uchumi Supermarkets disclosed that its unclaimed customer loyalty points were worth Sh239 million.

Tusker Mattresses Limited (Tuskys Supermarket) collapsed in 2023 with an undisclosed number of customer reward points. Quickmart’s disclosures come as the retailer continues to expand its presence in Kenya’s supermarket sector.

The company is now the second-largest retail chain in Kenya behind Naivas by store count and turnover, with an estimated 15 per cent share of the market. The company has a current store count of 72 in 16 counties.

In the year ended December 2025, Quickmart reported a 33 percent growth in net profit to Sh1.51 billion. Sales rose by 9.3 percent to Sh50.43 billion during the year. Quickmart’s owners are selling a 50 percent stake through a public offer at the Nairobi Securities Exchange between now and October 31.

There was a time when football fans would troop to Avenida Restaurant on Nairobi’s Moi Avenue to watch live matches on the screens as we moisturised our throats. The last time I was there, my team got a mighty drubbing and I got some excoriating, choice-reconsidering banter from rival fans.

I was partly to blame, though, as I had donned the team’s jersey on a match day. Red and proud. Others think it jinxes your team but I am brave like that. I will still wear my team’s jersey on any match day because, hey, am I the one playing? Am I the one earning, every week, an equivalent of a county’s payroll just to lose matches ad infinitum?

Anyway, at Avenida, if you were lucky you could get a space at the balcony. That offered a double view of the screens and the street underneath, judging Nairobi people and with their rushed walks, begging sprees, and motorcyclists doing everything to paint the city red – and not in a good way.

The design of Avenida was the epitome of a Nairobi club in its day. All clubs needed a street they were ‘looking down’ upon, with a fancy balcony to facilitate that, and sometimes another noisy club next door for good measure. Avenida had all this.

We have five senses, so they say, and whenever you were at Avenida, your ears got a treat of music from a deejay who typically mixed all the genres to cater to all audiences. Your eyes followed the live match or judged the people going about their business on the street. Your tongue would by that time have been treated to a drink, and they came in twos for whatever reason. Food was available, though I often found it a tad pricey.

The nose had little to do, but if it was sharper, you could smell scandals from the discussions here and there and catch copious whiffs of unfaithfulness because this is Nairobi.

Avenida logged out without much of a warning, fuelling speculation on social media. Its last post on social media was made in April. In the first week of October, the building that housed it was fenced off, ostensibly for redevelopment. Will Avenida return? Will something else come up?

I attended an event in Nairobi on Thursday convened by the Kenya Sugar Board and billed as a ‘consultative stakeholder meeting’ on the availability and use of locally refined white sugar.

I expected a routine discussion on agricultural policy. Instead, I found what looked like an attempt to legitimise a glaring contradiction: a punitive tax regime that shields one private enterprise while imposing crippling costs on Kenya’s wider food and beverage manufacturing sector.

For months, manufacturers that employ tens of thousands of Kenyans, buy from local farmers and compete in regional markets have been absorbing a massive fiscal shock.

The government has imposed a Sh40 per kilogramme levy on imported refined sugar used as an industrial input. Add the Import Declaration Fee, Railway Development Levy and import duty, and the total burden approaches 70 percent.

The consequences will eventually reach consumers through the price of bread, beverages, confectionery and dairy products. For manufacturers, however, this is not an abstract tax issue. It is a question of competitiveness and, ultimately, survival.

Yet one company appears to stand apart from this regime: Mombasa Sugar Refinery Limited (MSRL), owned by the Chatte family and based at Kibos, Kisumu County.

Let us be clear about what the Kibos refinery is.

Its advantage does not come from processing Kenyan cane. Nor does it come from some superior technological breakthrough. Kenya has a structural cane deficit and simply does not produce enough brown sugar to sustain industrial-scale production of refined sugar from local raw material.

Kibos imports raw bulk sugar, typically from surplus-producing countries such as Brazil and South Africa, refines it locally and sells it under government-granted excise exemptions.

Calling this ‘local sourcing’ stretches the meaning of the term beyond recognition. The raw material is imported. What happens locally is refining. So why should heavily invested Kenyan manufacturers pay a tax burden approaching 70 percent while one relatively new refinery enjoys bespoke fiscal privileges?

That is not how you build a domestic agricultural value chain. It is how you redistribute market power and financial rents from established, tax-paying manufacturers to a protected processor.

And not a single additional shilling of this arrangement goes to a cane farmer. Nor does the refinery appear to be operating anywhere close to the capacity for which it was built.

Kibos told Thursday’s meeting that in its first four months of operation it had sold only 7,700 metric tons against an annual capacity of 150,000 tonnes.

That translates to roughly 15 percent of the capacity theoretically available during those four months.

This raises a basic question: if an industry requires exceptional tax protection to compete, what happens when that protection fails to translate into meaningful market uptake?

The conduct of the Sugar Board was even more troubling. Much of the discussion revolved around ‘uptake’, ‘volume’ and ‘quality specifications’. But the regulator appeared to move from neutral referee to advocate, openly appealing to established manufacturers to demonstrate patriotism by buying from Kibos.

Patriotism is not a procurement specification. Industrial manufacturing does not run on patriotic appeals. It runs on consistent quality, strict ICUMSA specifications, reliable supply and competitive pricing.

A manufacturer supplying regional markets cannot simply gamble with product quality or production schedules because a regulator wants a particular supplier to gain market share.

And if that supplier’s price competitiveness depends on selective tax exemptions, the government is no longer simply facilitating competition. It is distorting it.

There is a straightforward way out.

The Kenya Sugar Board and the Kenya Revenue Authority have administered controlled industrial-use arrangements for years. The machinery for distinguishing sugar consumed as an industrial input from sugar intended for ordinary consumption already exists.

What is missing is equal treatment.

Registered food and beverage manufacturers should immediately receive equivalent relief from excise duty on refined sugar used strictly as an industrial input.

If Kibos can receive an exemption because it refines sugar locally, then established, compliant manufacturers that employ thousands of Kenyans and generate substantial industrial output should not be treated as tax targets.

If the government genuinely wants to protect Kenya’s domestic value chains, it should begin where the chain actually starts: in the cane fields.

Raise yields. Pay farmers on time. Improve cane productivity. Expand irrigation. Fix the dysfunctional sugar-milling system.

The issues raised at Ole Sereni therefore goes beyond sugar. Do we create a predictable, rules-based environment in which businesses compete on a broadly level playing field?

Or do we create islands of privilege in which selected investors receive fiscal advantages while established manufacturers carry the cost?

Equity Group chief executive James Mwangi has joined a 20-member global commission that will help craft a new global development roadmap to succeed the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that expire in 2030.

Mr Mwangi is the only African private-sector representative on the South-North Commission on Development, giving Kenya a seat on a panel whose recommendations are intended to influence the global development agenda after 2030.

The new outfit brings together World Bank president Ajay Banga, World Trade Organisation director-general Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nobel Peace laureate Denis Mukwege and former political leaders from Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America.

The commission, unveiled on June 30, 2026, will lay out a sweeping vision for improving the lives of people all over the world for decades.

Its input will craft a new development plan meant to replace and expand on the United Nations’ current road map, the Sustainable Development Goals that were adopted in 2015.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are focused on ending poverty around the world, while protecting the planet and ensuring a new prosperity for everyone.

The commission is co-chaired by former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and former Costa Rican president Laura Chinchilla, giving the panel political leadership from Europe and Latin America.

Its first meeting is scheduled for Bangkok on October 16 and 17 alongside the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank annual meetings, with interim findings due in 2027 and a final report at the end of 2028.

In his new role, Mr Mwangi is expected to bring his experience from Equity, which has built a large regional banking business around lending to households, small enterprises and agriculture across East and Central Africa.

‘Africa should no longer be seen through the lens of aid. It is a source of growth, talent, innovation and investment. I am honoured to join the Co-Chairs and my fellow Commissioners,’ said the Equity Bank boss following the appointment.

‘I will bring what Equity has learned about mobilising domestic and global capital, backing entrepreneurs and small businesses, and making financial and economic inclusion a platform for jobs and shared prosperity.’

The new global commission is modelled partly on the North-South Commission, which was chaired by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt from 1977 to 1983 and whose term lapsed.

It examined economic inequality between developed and developing countries. The fresh elite global team will propose new forms of international cooperation.

Germany says the new commission will build on that legacy while responding to a fundamentally changed global environment, with regular meetings and regional consultations over the next two years before its final report in 2028.

Its recommendations are expected to feed into the global development agenda after the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals expire in 2030.

The SDGs, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, set 17 global goals covering poverty, hunger, health, education, jobs, inequality, climate change, peace and other development priorities, giving countries a common blueprint for improving living standards by 2030.

But the goals are falling short of targets, with the latest UN assessment showing only 36 percent of measurable goals are on track or making moderate progress, while 49 percent are advancing too slowly as 15 percent fall below their 2015 baseline.