Category: Business Daily

The burden of the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran is disproportionately and indiscriminately being carried by the developing countries through trade. Inferably, these are no ordinary times, the conflict epitomises a major a ticking seismic reconfiguration of global alliances that is driven by the changes of the balance of power toward East and waning dominance of the West.

Consequentially, it is transforming globalisation from a unified, efficiency-drive system into a fragmented autarkic ideologically aligned. The ramifications of this seismic shift will likely be dire and far-reaching. Thus, a policy intervention with a long-term view is needed.

For Kenya, these altercations are no longer abstract. Their effects are being transmitted and permeating through Kenya’ macroeconomic channels. Already there has been sharp increase oil prices, which are expectedly exerting inflationary pressures.

The Persian crisis has put the spotlight on separate and unequal global trading system, which continues to compromise Africa’s development.

Africa contributes approximately three percent to global trade and paradoxically she is the primary supplier of raw materials.

This trade imbalances are imputable to the lingering effects of colonial extractive policies that call for major diversification in favour of intra-Africa trade.

This diversification is embedded in the Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the new Agreement on African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)which provides free movement of persons, capital, goods and service to deepen economic integration and promotion of agricultural development, food security, industrialisation and structural economic transformation.

Seemingly, these developments are repositioning Kenya as a credible gateway to East and Central Africa region as well as political and economic focal point of the simmering global tectonic realignment.

President Ruto being the current Chair of the Committee of Heads of State and Government on the implementation of the AfCFTA, Kenya must leverage on the goodwill to become the regional champion and driver of the implementation of AfCFTA.

These regional and local changes have triggered notable public policy gaps. As a result, a new dawn of opportunities is incubating much-needed localised expertise that can infuse policy debates with rigorous evidence-based data and an authentic African perspective.

To align its future development aspirations to the continental vision and, Kenya must strategically take advantage of the evolving regional policy landscape in furtherance of its vision.

Specifically, Kenya must lobby to drive the AfCFTA implementation agenda by tapping think-tanks such as Kippra to become an affiliate of the Secretariat of AfCFTA with regional focus of East Africa.

The High Court has struck out a fresh application by Standard Investment Bank (SIB) seeking to attach additional bank accounts belonging to Bomas of Kenya in a bid to recover a Sh104 million debt.

In its ruling, the court held that allowing the new application would create parallel recovery proceedings, leading to confusion and possible oppression of Bomas of Kenya and third parties involved.

The judge noted that the mere claim that the State corporation had opened new bank accounts did not justify the filing of separate execution proceedings.

‘Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated May 18,2026 is struck out with costs,’ the court ruled.

The dispute stems from a Sh104 million debt owed by Bomas of Kenya to SIB following an arbitration award. The court heard that the State corporation had paid Sh30 million through instalments between December 2023 and September 2024.

Bomas of Kenya told court that its subsequent default was caused by circumstances beyond its control, particularly the commencement of the Bomas International Convention Complex project. According to the corporation, the project led to the closure of its commercial operations and an estimated 84 percent drop in revenue.

SIB moved to court in January seeking orders compelling several banks, including KCB Bank Kenya, Co-operative Bank and Standard Chartered Bank, to release funds held on behalf of Bomas of Kenya to settle the debt.

It argued that it had established that Bomas of Kenya maintained additional bank accounts that had not previously been disclosed and whose balances should be available to satisfy the outstanding award.

However, Bomas opposed the fresh application, arguing that a similar execution application was already pending before the court.

The corporation added that it had separately filed an application seeking to stay the proceedings and that both matters were scheduled for hearing. Dismissing the application, the court held that SIB remains at liberty to seek appropriate directions in the pending attachment proceedings regarding any additional accounts or assets discovered during the execution process.

The court heard that filing a new application amounted to a multiplicity of execution proceedings and was therefore oppressive.

Bomas of Kenya also denied holding an account with Standard Chartered Bank and maintained that the funds held at Co-operative Bank were insufficient to satisfy the debt.

The state corporation further argued that freezing all its bank accounts would severely disrupt its operations and affect more than 300 employees.

Millennial cinephiles are eating good this season. We just had a Super Mario Bros. movie, a new Mortal Kombat movie, Scary Movie is back, another Jackass experience is on the way, and we can’t forget the Michael Jackson biopic. Nicolas Cage is Spider-Man in Spider-Man Noir, imagine that, we’ve lived long enough to see Cage play Spider-Man in a live-action series.

Spielberg is back with a new project, Toy Story has an upcoming instalment, a Street Fighter is also coming, and yet another Spider-Man film is on the horizon. As I said, millennials will be eating good, but the main course, the one title that stands out as the ultimate millennial nostalgia trip is Masters of the Universe.

Yes, He-Man. It’s been four decades, you remember the cartoon, the toys, the comics, or even the 1987 live-action film? Well He-Man is back, this time on the big-screen. Directed by Travis Knight and written by Chris Butler, Aaron Nee, Adam Nee, and David Callaham, this 2026 fantasy epic stars Nicholas Galitzine as Prince Adam/He-Man, alongside Camila Mendes, Jared Leto, Alison Brie, James Purefoy, Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson, Charlotte Riley, Kristen Wiig, Morena Baccarin, and Idris Elba.

The story follows Prince Adam as he returns to Eternia to embrace his destiny as He-Man and defend his world against Skeletor’s evil forces.

On paper, I didn’t think it was going to work. The original cartoon and even the Netflix revivals were rich in world-building, full of quirky characters and imaginative landscapes. Translating that into a live-action film without losing the charm felt like a tall order. Yet, they pulled it off.

Beyond that, the film also finds a way of balancing nostalgia for long-time fans with accessibility for newcomers.

It assumes that the audience has never heard of Eternia and handles the introduction of the world, the characters, and the stakes with care, ensuring everything is explained and presented clearly. Overall, It’s treated like a straightforward fantasy adventure, not an inside joke for fans.

I love this translation of Eternia. The CGI isn’t flawless, but the creative design of the world works. Costumes, performances, abilities and characters, no matter how absurd, are treated with respect, making the final product feel like the best version of the cartoon we’ve ever had.

Talking animals and eccentric side characters might be jarring for those unfamiliar, but they add to the fantasy flavour rather than detract from it. The world is colourful with cinematography that looks like it’s immersion-driven, with a lot of sweeping wide shots.

The action sequences are cool rather than epic. He-Man gets his moment in the third act. We do get the characters with unique abilities getting to use them, and they make it make sense.

The film is 132 minutes, which I appreciate; if you’re paying for a ticket, you want to feel you’ve had your money’s worth.

Apart from that, the length allows the story to breathe: setting up the premise, introducing the conflict, and delivering a somewhat satisfying resolution.

Skeletor, played by Jared Leto, is a standout. He’s terrifying, charismatic, and funny. The filmmakers even managed to give him readable expressions without a face, using clever lighting and design.

Skeletor steals the show, but the supporting characters are all given a substantial part in the film. No one feels wasted, except that, in the future, I would really like to see more of this version of Evil-Lyn played by Alison Brie and her relationship with Skeletor.

As for Prince Adam, Galitzine does an okay job. He’s charismatic, and the transformation to He-Man is convincing, with a clear contrast between the two personas.

Physically, he looks like the animated character, though I expected him to look ripped, like he stepped out of a Zack Snyder film. Since we are still in an era that forbids cool heroic male figures or overly attractive or appealing women, what we get in the writing, like Superman from last year, is watered-down, safe and generic characters that feel like they were lifted straight from a checklist.

The father-daughter subplot adds emotional weight, but the film feels more like a celebration of Eternia than a deep character study.

The pacing works for the story, but honestly I was too lost in the visuals to even be bothered. The visual effects occasionally show their seams, but the colourful backdrops, wide shots, and chase sequences make up for the runtime.

This is a film that begs to be seen on the big screen. The framing, compositions, and sheer scope look far better projected larger than they would on a small screen.

This is not a serious movie. Tonally, the film sticks close to the cartoon. There are moments of tension and genuine stakes, but much of the dialogue and interaction is played for laughs.

In fact, there is a moment in the third act where characters do something straight out of the cartoon. I can see some people getting annoyed by random moments of quips and jokes that sometimes feel out of place. All in all, it’s a feel-good fantasy, light-hearted and accessible, which might frustrate viewers expecting a darker, grittier take.

There are surprises too, including a clever nod to the previous film that fans will appreciate. The music combined with the visuals makes for an immersive experience; for fans of the original animated show, you will pick up some familiar audio signatures.

As I mentioned earlier, the story is accessible, and it doesn’t carry the weight of a truly epic blockbuster. It’s more casual entertainment than groundbreaking cinema. But that’s fine with a dynamic world like Eternia, and especially if you grew up with the cartoon.

Masters of the Universe is exactly what the trailers promise: a fun, accessible fantasy adventure that honours its roots without alienating newcomers. It’s not the best film of the year, but it’s one of the most enjoyable cinematic experiences I have had this year. For fans, it’s a chance to relive childhood memories on the big screen.

Lawmakers have questioned a decision by the National Treasury to spend Sh400 million on renovations of an office block whose acquisition from a private firm has not been concluded, saying it exposes taxpayers to financial risk.

This comes after the National Assembly Committee on Finance and National Planning approved acquisition of the five-storey block from Jubilee Holdings on Wabera Street, Nairobi, for Sh2.5 billion.

The National Assembly approved Sh1 billion in the financial year 2025/26 supplementary estimates I as part of the acquisition plan, with the balance to be cleared in the 2026/27 year.

The building, known as Jubilee Insurance House, was vacated by the insurance company, which moved its operations to the larger head office on Kilimanjaro Avenue, Upper Hill area, about a year ago.

Molo MP Kuria Kimani, who chairs the Finance and Planning Committee, said executing costly structural renovations on a property before finalising the acquisition exposes public funds to risk.

‘The committee had raised issues about renovating a building that is not theirs,’ Mr Kimani told Mr Samson Wangusi, the Principal Administrative Secretary (PAS) at the National Treasury.

‘It is because of this that we allocated them another Sh1 billion in the 2026/27 financial year estimates to acquire the building.’

Mr Wangusi had appeared before the committee to defend the budget estimates for the National Treasury on behalf of Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo.

‘We agree that you acquire the building first before undertaking any renovations. The figure of Sh400 million was a lot,’ said Mr Kimani as he loudly wondered whether it would increase the cost of acquiring the property.

‘You will need to convince this committee how the Sh400 million will not affect the cost and, therefore, not double the payment.’

The property has four wings, with office spaces starting from 220 square feet, making it suitable for small, medium and large enterprises.

It is not yet clear why the National Treasury went against a recommendation of the House Committee on Budget and Appropriations that blocked any renovations on the building until the government concludes negotiations to acquire it.

Mr Wangusi added a twist to the acquisition plan, saying the building is being evaluated and that the National Treasury will use two of its floors.

‘The building is undergoing valuation,’ said Mr Wangusi, an indication that it could either cost more or less, depending on the final valuation report.

According to the PAS, the Sh1 billion approved in the supplementary budget estimates in a down payment for the building’s acquisition, ‘is a mean’ allocation.

However, MPs David Mboni (Kitui Rural) and Peter Kaluma (Homa Bay Town) demanded to be informed why public funds were being expended for “wretched refurbishment on a building that is not yet owned by the government”.

‘Why renovate a building you do not own?’ asked Mr Mboni as he sought to know how the renovation would reflect in the valuation of the building.

Mr Kaluma laid the blame on lawmakers.

‘I don’t understand how we approved the use of public funds to renovate a private property,’ the Homa Bay Town MP said.

The National Land Commission (NLC) has been ordered to pay a Nairobi landowner Sh909 million within 90 days, ending a 12-year compensation battle over a property compulsorily acquired for the construction of the Southern Bypass road.

The Environment and Land Court ruled that government agencies, including NLC and the Kenya National Highway Authority (KeNHA), cannot evade constitutional obligations to promptly compensate landowners by shifting blame among themselves.

The court warned that the NLC chairman and chief executive could face contempt proceedings if the commission fails to comply with the payment order. The ruling capped a protracted legal fight that began after the State compulsorily acquired part of Five Star Agencies Limited’s land in Lang’ata for the construction of the Southern Bypass aimed to ease traffic gridlock in Nairobi city.

The prime parcel along Lang’ata Road measured approximately 20 acres, but the NLC compulsorily acquired about 0.4281 hectares of the land for the road project. The NLC had offered to compensate Five Star Agencies Sh87 million for the parcel, but the company challenged the award and secured a judgment in November 2014 for Sh413 million, with interest accruing until payment in full.

However, the company said it had been unable to recover the money despite years of litigation and repeated demands to government agencies.

In the latest application filed in March 2025, the firm sought orders compelling the NLC chairman and the CEO to settle the outstanding amount, which had risen to Sh909 million by December 2024 due to accumulated interest.

The company argued it had extracted and served a certificate of order against the government after appeals arising from the dispute had been exhausted, but no payment had been made.

NLC opposed the application, insisting that it merely facilitated compulsory acquisitions and that the responsibility for availing compensation funds lay with the KeNHA, which acquired the land for the road project.

The commission, through its CEO Kabale Tache Arero, told the court that KeNHA had not deposited the money required for disbursement despite follow-ups, making it unfair to punish its chief executive for non-payment.

But the court rejected the argument, saying the commission was raising issues that should have been addressed during the substantive hearing.

“I find that these are issues the court ought to have been canvassed at the hearing of the suit and as such are being raised too late after judgment had been rendered,” the judge said.

“The judgment of the court has not been vacated and still remains unexecuted,” he added.

The court noted that the NLC is a constitutional commission and a state organ whose execution process is governed by the Government Proceedings Act.

It found that the commission’s secretary, who is also its chief executive officer and accounting officer, bears responsibility for settling liabilities arising from court decrees.

“It would be in the interest of justice to allow the application to allow the applicant to enjoy the fruits of their long-awaited judgment having been outstanding for close to 12 years now,” the court said.

It directed the NLC chief executive officer to pay the decretal sum within 90 days and ordered the matter mentioned on September 30, 2026, to confirm compliance.

The court further warned that if payment is not made, summons would be issued to the NLC chairman and chief executive to show cause why they should not be cited and punished for contempt of court.

Uber Kenya is seeking a permit to allow it send parcels and other goods in a diversification move that puts it in direct competition with State-backed Postal Corporation of Kenya (Posta).

The American ride-hailing technology firm has applied to the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) for a National Courier Operator licence, which will allow it to collect and deliver packages across the country.

Uber’s entry into the courier business is set to pile fresh pressure on Posta, which has in recent years struggled to remain afloat as declining letter volumes, mounting losses and rising competition reshape Kenya’s delivery market.

The State-owned corporation has increasingly shifted focus to parcels, logistics and e-commerce deliveries as traditional mail services continue to shrink amid growing use of digital communication platforms.

Official data shows that postal services continued to contract in 2025, with the number of post offices decreasing from 623 to 457 and domestic letters declining by 5.7 percent.

During the year, the value of output for postal and courier services dropped to Sh25.99 billion down from the Sh26.64 billion recorded in 2024.

‘The number of licensed courier operators rose slightly from 348 in 2024 to 351 in 2025. The number of outlets operated by the licensed courier operators rose by 2.5 per cent from 1,130 in 2024 to 1,158 in 2025,’ wrote the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) in its latest Economic Survey.

The permit sought by Uber allows an operator to provide courier services throughout Kenya, including collection, sorting, transportation and delivery of parcels and documents.

Last September, the CA sought to introduce a new licence for courier-hailing firms that would see them pay Sh100,000 for permits as government hunted revenues from the fast-growing market for home and office deliveries.

If granted, the licence would formally extend Uber’s operations into a sector benefiting from growing demand for e-commerce deliveries, business logistics and same-day parcel distribution services.

The application comes at a time when courier services have become increasingly important to online merchants and small businesses seeking faster and more reliable delivery channels. Growth in e-commerce has fueled demand for parcel movement services as more transactions shift from physical stores to online platforms.

For Uber, the licence would allow it to leverage an existing network of drivers, routing technology and payment systems to compete in the delivery market without building an entirely new transport infrastructure.

The company already operates ride-hailing and food delivery services in Kenya, giving it access to a large customer base and a ready distribution network.

The courier business is also set to provide an additional revenue stream as competition intensifies in the ride-hailing sector.

Digital taxi operators have in recent years faced growing pressure from disputes over fares, commissions and driver earnings, prompting firms to explore adjacent business opportunities.

Internationally, Uber has expanded parcel delivery operations in several markets, allowing customers to send packages through the same application used for transport and food orders.

Kenya’s courier market has become increasingly competitive as operators seek to capitalise on rising demand for same-day and next-day delivery services.

Delivery services have become critical for sectors such as retail, healthcare, financial services and manufacturing, where rapid movement of goods and documents is increasingly important.

Unlike conventional courier firms that rely on dedicated delivery fleets, Uber could potentially utilise drivers already active on its platform to fulfil parcel deliveries, with the potential to lower operating costs and improve efficiency.

Greater competition is set to give rise to more delivery options and faster fulfilment times for consumers.

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution firmly anchored matters environment in the fifth chapter. This elevated them above policy and law, and should inform the management of riparian reserves countrywide. Ongoing efforts by the Nairobi City County Government to inspect and clean up rivers, and others around the country, should be accordingly guided.

Unfortunately, the laws and regulations on the measurement and management of riparian reserves have remained divergent. It’s reason why the current government initiative to harmonise them is commendable.

Through the Ministry of Lands led initiative, the government invited written and oral comments through a public notice issued in April. The submissions closed in late May. It’s expected that the public, experts and key stakeholders seized the opportunity to provide inputs to help resolve the existing gaps and inconsistencies.

Soon after the public notice, the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK), a key stakeholder in land administration and management, weighed in. ISK issued a comprehensive statement on the matter in early May, whose contents speak to law and practice.

It underscored the importance of protecting water bodies and the restoration of riparian ecosystems to mitigate flooding, and support sustainable management. ISK highlighted the challenges posed by the multiplicity of statutes and the different interpretations attached to the definition and measurement of riparian reserves, which undermine their protection.

The ISK statement helped to enrich discussion on this elusive matter. Its contents should help stakeholders and the government to improve the management of the reserves.

The statement highlighted that some of the affected properties were legitimately allocated and registered before independence, when the categorisation of riparian reserves was non-existent.

Indeed, quite a number of properties in Nairobi and other parts of the country had their boundaries surveyed and defined to be the centre lines of the bounding rivers.

At the time, the current legal regulatory regime did not exist. This reality therefore informed the development of such properties at the time.

Ongoing efforts to inspect developments along rivers should therefore beware the existence and legitimacy of such developments.

How then should they be handled? ISK advises that such property rights should remain respected, and where there is a good case for demolition of permanent developments in the interest of conservation and water flow, the process of compulsory acquisition and compensation as enshrined under the Constitution should kick-in.

The process ought to proceed as happens where public roads, railways or dams have to be constructed on private land, with each case treated on its merit.

Moreover, ISK reminds that the categorisation of private land to riparian reserve should be understood in the context of access, land use and development control, and not the conversion of such land to public.

Riparian reserves on private land therefore remain under private ownership, but with restrictions imposed on the use and development of such land. This ensures consistency with our Constitution as provided under article 66.

Stakeholders and policy drivers in government ought to take interest in the contents of the ISK statement. It will help to temper the approach to the enforcement of regulations on riparian reserves, and to converge the existing legal framework.

The Ministry of Agriculture projects to collect Sh1.38 billion from the newly tea export levy annually, raising the total taxes from the beverage to more than Sh1.4 billion.

The government expects to collect Sh40 million in tea import levy, raising the total revenue from tea taxes to Sh1.42 billion a year.

The Tea Levy Regulations, 2026 reintroduces a levy, payable only by tea exporters at 0.8 percent of the auction value or customs value for direct sales, and by tea importers at 100 percent of the import value per consignment of made tea.

The collection of Sh1.42 billion is based on 2023 export data, where 522.92 million kilos of tea was exported, generating Sh180.57 billion.

‘Based on 2023 export data, the levy is projected to generate approximately Sh1.38 billion from export levy and Sh40 million from import levy, totaling Sh1.42 billion per annum,’ the Ministry said in a report.

‘Under the regulation, the funds would be invested into the tea sector. Sh710 million will go to the Farmer Price Stabilisation Fund, Sh284 million to research, Sh213 million to Tea Board of Kenya (TBK) operations and Sh213 million to county governments for infrastructure.’

The Tea Levy Regulations, 2026 reintroduced a statutory levy of 0.8 percent on exports and imports under the authority of Section 53 of the Tea Act, 2020.

The levy was previously in place as an ad valorem until 2016, when it was scrapped. Its abolition left the TBK and the Tea Research Institute without sustainable funding, causing a sharp decline in research, quality surveillance and market promotion.

‘The levy is being restored to build a sustainable, industry-funded mechanism to invest in research, marketing, infrastructure and farmer price protection,” the ministry said.

‘It is imposed on exporters and importers of tea, not farmers or factories. The 100 percent import levy is a protective mechanism, not a general revenue measure.’

The Ministry says the purpose of the 100 percent import levy is to shield Kenyan tea producers from the influx of cheap, low-quality imported tea from neighbouring countries.

‘The fund framework ensures farmers are not wholly exposed to the volatility of the international commodity market, a protection they have lacked since the levy was abolished in 2026,’ the ministry report said.

‘The Price Stabilisation Fund (receiving 50 percent of levy revenue) is designed to act as a cushion when global tea auction prices drop below sustainable levels, provide supplementary payments to smallholder farmers to bridge the gap between market prices and target earnings and respond to climate events such as floods and drought that damage crop output and reduce farmer income.’

Under regulation 5 of the Tea Levy Regulations, 2026, some teas are exempted, including value-added tea packed in containers of 10kg or less, tea extracts and tea aroma products, and Kenyan teas processed for value addition in an Export Processing Zone.

President William Ruto’s ambition to make Kenya the ‘Singapore of Africa’ has dominated development discourse, but history suggests that replicating Singapore’s model is far harder than policymakers assume.

Dr Christie Agawa’s research shows the rapid rise of Germany, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan cannot be separated from Cold War geopolitics. Their transformation was not just superior policy or governance. It was also strategic backing from Western powers who needed capitalist success stories against Soviet influence.

West Germany received massive grants and debt relief in the 1950s. South Korea industrialised through state-backed chaebols (large, family-owned industrial conglomerates ) that became global export engines.

Singapore’s rise follows the same logic. Located at the entrance to the Strait of Malacca, it controls one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints. Lee Kuan Yew became a staunch anti-communist ally when containing communism in Asia was a core Western objective.

That stance secured US security guarantees, preferential access to Western markets, and disproportionate foreign direct investments (FDI) inflows for a country its size.

Singapore did not industrialise in a neutral global environment. It was a strategic asset in a bipolar world. Taiwan and South Korea reinforce the point: State-led development was deeply intertwined with patronage.

Planning was centralised, credit was directed by the State, and infant industries were shielded. But success depended on tight coordination between political elites and connected business groups. Access to finance, licences, and export quotas was politically managed. Crony capitalism was not a deviation from their takeoff. It was embedded in the model.

Contrast that with Africa’s structural reality. The Democratic Republic of Congo holds some of the world’s richest cobalt, copper, gold, and uranium deposits, yet remains trapped in poverty, weak infrastructure, and recurring conflict.

In Ghana, rural women harvest shea nuts for the global cosmetics industry, but European firms capture the bulk of the value through processing, branding, and retail. The core trap is structural.

In global value chains, power sits with firms that control technology, branding, and market access. Raw material exporters like Kenya compete on price and volume. Singapore escaped because Cold War geopolitics let it host, not just supply, the high-value nodes: finance, logistics, and manufacturing for Western multinationals.

Dr Agawa asserts that Western policy in Africa is fundamentally about control of resources, not growth. Liberalisation, austerity, and open markets keep African States as suppliers of cheap inputs while foreclosing the State-led upgrading that Asia used.

Colonial history sharpens the contradiction. Early European industrialisation drew heavily on colonial extraction. France’s industrial expansion was supported by African raw materials, captive markets, and forced trade systems. The scale remains debated, but the link between colonial extraction and European capital formation is well documented.

The pattern is clear: countries that industrialised often did so under strategic protection, external subsidies, colonial extraction, or tightly managed state capitalism. Yet late-developing countries are now required by the IMF, World Bank, and donor consensus to industrialise through liberalisation, austerity, fiscal compression, and fully open markets.

This raises an uncomfortable question: were the Asian miracles purely good governance, or also beneficiaries of geopolitical favoritism that no longer exists? South Korea and Taiwan expanded rapidly while embedded in patronage networks and politically connected business systems. Corruption existed, but it coexisted with industrial deepening.

History also shows few nations industrialised under mature democracy. Britain’s industrial revolution restricted political participation to a property-owning elite. The US built early economic power while slavery remained a central institution. East Asian states explicitly prioritised economic transformation over liberal democratic ideals during takeoff.

None of this celebrates corruption, authoritarianism, or exclusion. It means development is shaped by historical timing, geopolitics, State capacity, and access to patient capital. Importing policy templates while ignoring those conditions produces fantasy, not strategy.

Kenya is not Singapore, and the differences are structural, not cultural. Singapore is 728 sq km with 5.9 million people, a single tier of government, and a deep-water port on the busiest shipping lane on earth. Nairobi County alone is 694 sq km.

Kenya covers 580,000 sq km with 55 million people, 44 ethnic groups, and a devolved system of 47 counties with distinct political economies. The scale, diversity, and institutional complexity are incomparable.

Singapore also industrialised in a unique Cold War moment with US security guarantees and capital inflows tied to its anti-communist stance. Kenya faces a multipolar world, no security patron, and a debt-driven global financial system that penalises State-led industrial policy. The lesson is not to become Singapore.

The lesson is to study the structural conditions that made Singapore possible, then design a strategy rooted in Kenya’s own realities: leverage agriculture and agro-processing where Kenya has comparative advantage, deepen regional trade under AfCFTA to build economies of scale, and rebuild state capacity to direct credit toward productive sectors instead of consumption. Chasing Singapore is a distraction.

Building Kenya is the task.

The growing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in legal work is increasingly dividing opinion between skeptics and believers. Skeptics warn of inaccuracy, ethical compromise and declining service quality. Believers, on the other hand, maintain that AI is not only inevitable but indispensable to modern legal practice.

The truth, however, lies somewhere in between. AI is neither a panacea nor a threat to be resisted. It presents a shift in how legal services are being delivered to businesses.

What distinguishes the current wave of AI from earlier legal technologies is the rise of generative AI and large language models. These systems are capable of understanding and producing human language with remarkable fluency.

This efficiency dividend is already visible in dispute resolution. AI tools are now routinely used to sift through vast volumes of documents, extract relevant facts and organise evidence in a manner that allows lawyers to focus on strategy rather than process.

More advanced applications go further, using predictive analytics to assess likely outcomes based on historical data.

At the far end of this spectrum lies automated dispute resolution, where entire claims can be processed through online platforms that guide parties from filing to resolution with minimal human intervention.

For businesses, this evolution presents a compelling proposition. Disputes can be resolved more quickly, at lower cost and without the procedural complexity that has at times defined traditional modes such as litigation and arbitration. Indeed, global platforms already resolve low-value disputes through automated systems, with human oversight reserved for more complex matters.

Yet it is precisely at this point that the skeptics’ concerns become more persuasive. Dispute resolution is not simply a mechanical exercise in applying legal rules to data. It involves context, judgment and, often, an appreciation of human behaviour and motive.

AI, for all its capabilities, operates on patterns and probabilities. It does not understand nuance in the way a human decision-maker does.

This limitation becomes significant in complex commercial disputes, where outcomes often turn on qualitative factors that cannot easily be reduced to data. These concerns also bring to the fore issues surrounding the unauthorised practice of law, particularly where AI tools are used to generate court documents which, should only be prepared by qualified Advocates.

Recent decisions from Kenyan courts illustrate this tension. In one instance, court documents were struck out on the basis that they were generated using AI and failed to meet substantive and procedural requirements for court documents. In another case, the use of AI was viewed as conferring an undue advantage on one party.

Similarly, in the US, courts have increasingly sanctioned and fined lawyers for using AI to prepare court documents containing fabricated case citations and quotations.

These decisions, though still emerging, signal a judicial unease with how AI is being deployed indiscriminately without regard to substantive safeguards. Together, they reflect a system grappling with a new technology increasingly being deployed without sufficient restraint.

AI systems are known to produce inaccurate outputs, sometimes referred to as hallucinations, where responses are plausible but incorrect. There are also concerns around bias in training data, confidentiality of client information and the question of liability when AI-generated content proves erroneous.

In a profession built on precision, confidentiality and accountability, these concerns go to the heart of legal practice, with direct implications on the businesses they advise and represent.

However, these risks are not without mitigation. Techniques such as requiring AI systems to cite sources, grounding outputs in verified data and maintaining strict human oversight can significantly reduce error. Nevertheless, the responsibility for the final product remains with the lawyer.

Perhaps the skeptics are correct in stating that AI use needs to be minimised and disputes resolved by human beings, however, the believers are not wrong in stating that the increased use of AI is inevitable.

Administrative and preparatory functions such as document review, legal research and case organisation are increasingly accepted and pose minimal threat to the integrity of proceedings. But tasks such as drafting legal documents or analysing evidence should not be substituted by AI use.

The future of dispute resolution therefore lies not in replacing lawyers or judges with AI, but in redefining its role. AI will handle the repetitive administrative tasks allowing practitioners to focus on strategy, advocacy and judgment. In this sense, the most effective model is not substitution but collaboration in a system where human expertise and machine efficiency complement each other.

This shift is already influencing client expectations. Businesses are no longer asking whether AI can be used, but how it can be used to enhance efficiency and reduce cost without compromising quality.

Law firms that fail to respond to this expectation risk falling behind, not because AI will replace them, but because others will use it more effectively.

At the same time, regulation is beginning to take shape globally, with jurisdictions adopting risk-based approaches to ensure that AI systems are used responsibly. Kenya’s AI legislation should follow a similar path.

The challenge for policymakers will be to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and safeguarding the fundamental principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

Ultimately, the debate on AI in legal practice is not a binary one.

The skeptics are right to caution against its unrestricted adoption. The believers are equally right to recognise that AI is here to stay. The important question is how to integrate it in a manner that enhances, rather than undermines, the administration of justice.