Category: Business Daily

There he is Erastus Mwencha on the video feed, sitting somewhere that looks like a backyard, his camera positioned the way your own father would position his. He’s stoic and wise, measured.

When reflection presents itself-and for a man in his 70s who has shaped Africa’s economic architecture, there is much to reflect upon-he doesn’t indulge it. Instead, he reverts to the dignity of purpose.

This is a man who wanted to be a lawyer but became an economist instead, who calls it providence. Who left a secure government job in Kenya to join an obscure regional body called PTA, a decision that baffled his peers but became his life’s defining moment.

For over three decades, Mr Mwencha has been the quiet engineer behind Africa’s integration ambitions-first as Secretary-General of Comesa, where he built the continent’s first free trade area and established institutions with balance sheets exceeding $10 billion, then as Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission, where he helped birth the African Continental Free Trade Area.

But spend time with him (even on video), and you discover something unexpected: this Pan-Africanist who speaks of Ubuntu and collective humanity is haunted not by personal regrets, but by Africa’s unfulfilled promise. “We haven’t progressed as much as we should have,” he says.

He’s writing a memoir, taking courses, and busier now than before. Yet there’s an urgency beneath the calm-a recognition that understanding the world more clearly has only deepened his fears. “Countries without power risk being on the menu instead of at the table,” he says. For Mr Mwencha, Africa’s unity isn’t idealism; it’s survival.

Was becoming an economist a calling, or did it just happen?

Interestingly, I initially wanted to become a lawyer, but I didn’t get a place in law school. Economics became my second choice. Looking back, I don’t regret it at all. I believe there was providence in that path. I thank God for the opportunity to contribute in the way I have, and I feel I’ve lived a fulfilling life.

What are you most proud of when you look back?

I’m proud I was part of the team that launched Africa’s first free trade area under Comesa. We also established strong institutions- a regional bank with a balance sheet of over $10 billion, insurance and reinsurance companies, and agencies that provide trade finance and political risk cover across Africa.

At the African Union, I’m proud of the institutional reforms we carried out-digitising the Commission, strengthening financing from member states, and supporting the African Continental Free Trade Area. When I look back, I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute in these areas.

How old are you now?

I’m in my 70s-and still very young.

What do you think has been your contribution to humanity?

Under African values, we talk about Ubuntu-humanity as something collective, not individual. I believe my contribution has been in lifting others: helping someone access education, supporting businesses, and enabling people to see better possibilities in life through the work we’ve done. I’m grateful to God for those opportunities.

What questions are you asking yourself at this stage of life?

Naturally, you look back and see moments where you might have taken a different path. But you also understand that decisions are made with the information and circumstances available at the time. What troubles me more is Africa’s journey.

We haven’t progressed as much as we should have in regional integration. In some cases, we’ve gone backwards, and that saddens me deeply. Those are among my biggest regrets.

What would you undo?

At a family level, there are things I wish had turned out differently. Professionally, there are moments-both at regional and continental levels-where, in hindsight, we could have done better. Sometimes we took certain things for granted.

Where did you grow up, and what do you remember about your parents?

I was born during colonial times and grew up in a village in Kisii. Life was difficult. Schooling was not guaranteed-I had to join my father, who worked as a labourer on a white man’s farm, and it was only in his absence that I was allowed to attend school.

I’ve written about this in my memoir, which is coming out soon. The book focuses on continental integration, but it also weaves in my personal journey alongside Africa’s.

My father, having experienced colonialism, was determined that his children would be educated. He insisted on it, even forcing my older brother back to school when he wanted to stop.

He lived his values. My mother was hardworking, frank, and deeply loving. She raised nine children and made sure we were fed, clothed, and educated. When I look back, I’m deeply grateful to both of them.

When did you pivot in your life?

Several times, but one major pivot was leaving Kenya to become an international civil servant at PTA/Comesa. At the time, I was a senior government officer with a clear path upward.

Many people couldn’t understand why I would leave for an organisation that was largely unknown. It was a major inflection point, but I’ve never looked back. It was the right decision.

What has scared you most in recent memory?

My greatest fear is failure-failure of the work we have done, particularly around regional and continental integration. Integration efforts are not new in Africa. We’ve seen them collapse before. Even globally, when you look at developments like Brexit, you realise nothing is guaranteed.

I fear that Africa could still fall apart in this regard, and more than that, that Africa is being left behind. A great deal would change if we had leaders with foresight-leaders who understood that pursuing development purely at the national level is not sufficient. Our economies are too small. To survive and grow, we must trade, and the best option Africa has is to trade with itself.

Yet I see many leaders who are blinded to these opportunities. That is not just a fear-it is a deep frustration.

What about personal fears?

Yes, at the family level. The environment today is different from the one we grew up in. It is far more contaminated-socially, technologically, morally.

Our children and grandchildren are growing up in a hostile environment, and for them to succeed, it requires focus, discipline, and strong values. That worries me greatly.

What are you currently struggling with?

Not health-wise, my health is good. But I continue to work on being more present as a family person. International work takes you away from home.

I also want to keep offering my skills where they’re needed to support economic transformation. That struggle continues, and I’ll keep contributing as long as God gives me breath.

Do you credit your good health to discipline, genetics, or luck?

[Pause] I honestly don’t know. I thank God. But I’ve tried to live by Christian values, exercise regularly, read, and watch what I eat. All of that contributes to one’s health.

How many children do you have?

Three. All married.

How was your fatherhood journey?

It was a good journey. Living in Zambia helped because the society was very integrated. While my children were uprooted from Kenyan culture, they found roots through church, school, and community. They grew into global citizens, now spread across the world, and I’m very proud of them.

What’s one thing you wish they understood about you?

I leave that to them. But my hope is that they uphold African values-Ubuntu, humanity, family. Culture isn’t about returning to the village; it’s about how we treat each other. Above all, I pray that they become citizens of God more than citizens of the world.

When was the last time you changed your mind about something important?

Many times-even recently. [Grins] One defining moment was when I felt frustrated and wanted to leave Comesa because integration was moving too slowly.

Just as I reconsidered, events unfolded that placed me at the centre of that transformation. Looking back, I’m glad I didn’t jump ship.

What do people who no longer work with you say about you-fairly or unfairly?

Fairly, many appreciate my hard work and commitment. Unfairly-or perhaps fairly-some feel I can be too accommodating, trying to bring everyone on board, sometimes at the expense of firmness.

Which part of leadership makes you uncomfortable?

Loneliness-especially when making difficult decisions. Trying to ensure no one is left behind can sometimes make you overly accommodating. That tension is uncomfortable.

Do you consider this season of your life retirement?

I’ve never felt comfortable with the word ‘retirement.’ I’m active in the private sector, exploring new ideas, enrolling in courses, and writing my memoir. In fact, I’m busier now than I was before.

Do you understand the world more as you grow older-or less?

More. And the more I understand it, the more I’m scared.

What scares you?

As I pointed out earlier, I fear that Africa is being left behind. Attempts to deglobalise, in my view, are futile. Globalisation is a fact of life, driven by technology, multinational corporations, and the movement of people.

The danger is that countries without strength are not at the table-they are on the menu. Africa has the capacity to influence global decisions if it acts in unity. The tragedy is that we are not united, and because of that, we continue to be left behind.

Investors who sold their Treasury bonds on the secondary market at the Nairobi bourse made a profit of Sh176 billion after falling returns on new issuances triggered a jump in prices and demand for older, more lucrative papers.

The profits were nearly five times the Sh36.1 billion in earnings the secondary market made in 2024, underlining the dual impact of higher trading activity and prices.

The profit is the difference between the selling price of the bonds to other investors on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) and their face value, which is the amount the seller paid the government when purchasing a unit of the paper in the primary market Central Bank of Kenya (CBK).

The face value of a unit of a bond is priced at Sh100, and they were sold for up to Sh123 at the NSE.

Capital Markets Authority (CMA) data shows that investors traded a record Sh2.71 trillion worth of bonds at the NSE, with a face value of Sh2.53 trillion. In 2024, the bonds turnover stood at Sh1.5 trillion.

‘Investors turned to the secondary market, hunting for favourable yields and capital gains, as interest rates on new bonds declined due to the Central Bank of Kenya’s easing cycle,’ said Melodie Ndanu, a research analyst at Standard Investment Bank.

‘Additionally, liquidity increased significantly in the year as the CBK pumped in cash through open market operations, coupled with the reduction of the cash reserve ratio for banks and the central bank rate cuts.’

There is an inverse relationship between bond prices at the NSE and yields in the secondary market, where an increase in one results in a fall in the other.

Bond interest rates in the market declined in line with CBK cuts on the benchmark rate, which fell from 13 percent to 9.0 percent between August 2024 and December 2025.

The falling bond rate made Investors reluctant to sell existing securities, which pay higher interest.

Those selling demanded a premium, which sparked a rally in the price of highly sought-after papers like the tax-free infrastructure bonds (IFBs) of 2023 and 2024.

Other ordinary bonds have a withholding tax of 10 percent on interest for tenors above five years, while those of a lower duration are taxed at 15 percent.

A 17-year IFB sold in March 2023 pays investors 14.4 percent, while a seven-year bond issued in June 2013 carries a coupon of 15.83 percent.

In November 2023, the CBK sold a 6.5-year IFB at 17.93 percent, followed by an 8.5-year paper in February 2024 at 18.76 percent.

These papers have been trading at premium prices of between Sh109 and Sh124 per bond unit of Sh100, effectively handing their holders a capital gain of eight to 24 percent on the face value of their bonds.

The highest premium is on the 8.5-year IFB, whose price this week stood at Sh123.65, followed by the 6.5-year IFB at Sh116.20.

For the other ordinary bonds, prices range from Sh99.90 to Sh109 per bond unit, meaning they are also offering sellers a premium despite their lower coupons of between 10 and 14.3 percent.

Investors have sought to lock in these papers due to the rate outlook pointing to even lower returns from new bond sales in the medium term.

For the investors who sold their bonds at the NSE, the profits represent a return of seven percent on their initial outlay.

Meanwhile, investors who held onto their bonds continued to earn annual interest, at rates of between 10 percent and 18.46 percent.

In 2024, the profits of Sh36 billion were equivalent to a return of 2.9 percent on the face value of the securities.

On returns, the bond market trailed the equities market at the NSE, where investor wealth grew 51.8 percent or Sh1 trillion to Sh2.94 trillion last year.

Profits from bond sales matched returns from Nairobi’s property market, where sales of homes posted a return of 7.7 percent. Return on land sales stood at 6.21 percent while rents contracted 2.5 percent.

Treasury bills paid investors between 7.7 percent and 11.4 percent last year, while interest returns on fixed cash deposits in banks declined to 7.17 percent in November from 10.05 percent in January 2025.

The CBK will hold its next monetary policy committee meeting on February 10, with a possibility of cutting the base rate for a 10th straight time in order to spur lending to the private sector.

A stable shilling-dollar exchange rate and inflation holding below the CBK’s preferred range of five percent plus or minus 2.5 percentage points also support further easing.

The bond market has also grown in popularity among investors over the past two years, with a marked increase in holdings of the securities by retail investors and fund managers.

This increased participation has fed into the demand for bonds in the secondary market, giving those holding high-priced papers an avenue to sell for a profit.

The vibrancy of the market is backed by the introduction of the CBK’s Dhow CSD digital bonds trading platform in 2023, which has made it easier to buy government securities.

Households now hold Sh438.3 billion or 6.4 percent of the government’s domestic debt, which stood at Sh6.85 trillion as of January 16. At the end of June 2025, they held Sh409.3 billion of the State’s domestic debt, CBK numbers show.

Foreign investors hold Sh315 billion of the debt, with non-financial companies and non-profit organisations holding Sh123.3 billion and Sh61.6 billion respectively.

Previously, these retail bond buyers were bundled together under one umbrella known as ‘other investors’, alongside self-help groups, private companies, individuals, saccos, religious and educational institutions. This group of investors collectively held Sh288 billion worth of government securities three years ago, illustrating the scale of growth in new bond purchases by non-institutional investors.

Commercial banks remain the biggest lenders to the government at Sh2.38 trillion, followed by pension funds at Sh1 trillion and insurance companies at Sh924.5 billion.

Government institutions, including parastatals, hold Sh500 billion worth of government debt.

The High Court has dismissed a case filed by a group of small-scale tea farmers challenging disputed bonus payments, ruling that the matter had been overtaken by events and could no longer provide any practical remedy.

The decision comes amid ongoing tensions over tea earnings and follows recent directives from the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) to revise payment structures following months of farmer protests.

The court declined an application seeking judicial review against the Tea Board of Kenya, several KTDA subsidiaries and the Agriculture Cabinet Secretary, finding that the contested bonuses for the 2024/2025 financial year had already been disbursed.

The court ruled that the farmers’ case was moot since the payments had been fully processed by October 2025, leaving no active dispute requiring judicial intervention.

“The disputed bonuses have already been paid out, meaning there is no live controversy for this court to determine,” the judgment stated.

The lawsuit was initiated by Jeremiah Migosi and the Gusii Small Scale Tea Farmers, who accused tea sector regulators and KTDA of enforcing a discriminatory payment system that disproportionately disadvantaged growers in western Kenya.

The petitioners argued that farmers in western regions received between Sh10 and Sh13 per kilogramme of tea, while their counterparts in eastern Kenya earned up to Sh55-Sh57 per kilogramme-despite selling through the same auction system.

They contended that this disparity, exceeding 470 per cent, violated constitutional safeguards against discrimination and breached their right to fair administrative action. Additionally, they accused the Tea Board of failing its statutory mandate under the Tea Act to protect farmers’ interests.

In response, the Tea Board and KTDA defended the payment structure, stating that bonuses are determined by individual factory boards based on market performance, production costs, and operational efficiency.

They further argued that KTDA operates under private commercial agreements and does not perform public functions subject to judicial review.

The court sidestepped these substantive arguments, focusing instead on whether the dispute remained legally viable.

The judge emphasized that judicial review is designed to address concrete, ongoing conflicts rather than hypothetical or academic questions.

“The doctrine of mootness requires an actual controversy to exist at every stage of judicial review,” the ruling noted.

Since both parties acknowledged that the 2024/2025 payments had been finalized by October 10, 2025, the court concluded that granting judicial review would serve no practical purpose.

“The applicants framed their case around a specific payment cycle rather than a systemic challenge to future policies,” the judge observed. “Granting leave for judicial review would be a futile exercise.”

The case unfolded against a backdrop of escalating farmer discontent over KTDA’s payment practices, particularly after bonuses dropped sharply compared to previous years.

KTDA attributed the decline to unfavorable global market conditions, regional quality variations, and a stronger Kenyan shilling, which reduced dollar-denominated export earnings when converted.

In September 2025, KTDA acknowledged the challenges in a public statement: “The drop in earnings stems primarily from adverse international market trends and unfavorable currency exchange rates compared to the previous year.”

Under mounting pressure, KTDA has since proposed adjustments to its payment model. The agency’s board recently recommended capping monthly payments at Sh30 per kilogramme of green leaf, with regional variations based on financial capacity.

Factories west of the Rift Valley-including Kericho, Bomet, and Kisii-were advised to target payments of up to Sh26, while eastern regions like Kiambu and Murang’a could aim for Sh30.

Members of Parliament (MPs) yesterday put Treasury Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo to task for what they termed rushed sale of the government’s 15 percent stake in Safaricom to South Africa’s Vodacom Group in the absence of a legal framework to ringfence the Sh204.3 billion proceeds.

The MPs also demanded to know whether there was an independent valuation in the transaction in which the government is also to receive a separate Sh40.2 billion, representing an upfront payment of dividends that will accrue on the State’s residual 20 percent stake in Safaricom.

MPs expressed concerns that in the absence of a legal framework establishing the Infrastructure Fund, the proceeds of the sale of shares will be deposited in the Consolidated Fund, thereby making it vulnerable for diversion to recurrent expenditure.

The government reached an agreement to sell six billion Safaricom shares to Vodacom at a price of Sh34 each. This represents a premium of 15.2 percent compared to the telco’s share price price of Sh29.5 on Thursday.

The National Assembly has a few days to either approve, reject or amend the proposed transaction.

Finance and National Planning committee chairperson Kuria Kimani, whose committee is overseeing the transaction, said the biggest concern on the partial divestiture is how Parliament will guarantee that the money will go toward funding infrastructure projects in the absence of a legal framework.

‘If the money went to the Consolidated Fund as required by the Constitution as Article 206, are we as Parliament able to trace this expenditure?’ Posed Teso South MP Mary Emmase.

Kitui South MP Rachael Nyamai demanded to know why the government had not tabled a Bill on the establishment of the Infrastructure Fund to ensure the money is ring fenced.

‘We have the debt and pending bills which takes priority in spending. This money could be diverted to pay this pressing need including salaries and debt,’ she said.

Dr Kiptoo told lawmakers that the Treasury had created the Infrastructure Fund as a limited liability company to receive the proceeds.

‘We thought we could use the Companies Act to set up the Infrastructure Fund quickly as a limited liability company and have Parliament approve the instrument. We are amenable to any proposals that you may have because we know that there is an ongoing public participation,’ Dr Kiptoo said.

?emutai@ke.nationmedia.com

?smundu@ke.nationmedia.com

‘We will do further consultations quickly and see how to address the matter as to whether we have a law before passing the sessional paper on divestiture.’

Suba South MP Caroli Omondi demanded to know whether there was an independent market survey done before the government moved with the divestiture of its Safaricom shares.

Machakos Woman Representative Joyce Kemene demanded the methodology that was used to arrive at the price of Sh34 per share.

Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah sought to know if there were other pathways for partial divestiture of Safaricom.

‘Tell Kenyans if there is anybody with an alternative pathway that can deliver higher value, are you opposed to it?’ Mr Ichung’wah asked.

Dr Kiptoo said the National Treasury would welcome any option that will enable Kenyans to get better value than the offer it has negotiated with Vodacom.

When he appeared before the joint parliamentary committee that is considering the deal, National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi said that proceeds from the transaction will only be used to finance commercially viable infrastructure projects.

State agencies have already submitted a list of viable projects that the proceeds the government will get from the deal will be invested in.

‘The proceeds of the sale of Safaricom shares will be exclusively used to de-risk and lower the cost of infrastructure projects. I have already established the National Infrastructure Fund Limited where I am the sole shareholder,’ Mr Mbadi told the lawmakers.

‘This money is not going to fund our budget, it is not going to be used to fill our fiscal deficit, not to pay pending bills nor capitation. This money is going to be used exclusively on only commercially viable projects.

The funds, according to the Cabinet Secretary, will also go towards the energy sector where it will be used to fund generation and transmission of power that will be economically viable.

Individual debt investors returned to the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) in large numbers in the quarter to December 2025 after Safaricom and East African Breweries (EABL) tapped the market for funding, underscoring renewed appetite for corporate bonds after a prolonged issuance drought.

The number of individual corporate bond investors at the bourse rose 3.9 times to 2,966 from 759 in September, lifting the share of retail participation in the bond market to 7.2 percent from 5.8 percent, latest data from the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) shows.

The surge followed two successful corporate bond issuances during the quarter by Safaricom and EABL, both of which were oversubscribed, coming shortly after a bond issue by Linzi Finco Trust that ended more than a year without a new corporate bond listing.

Safaricom raised Sh20 billion in a medium-term note issued in December and which attracted bids worth Sh41.86 billion, with the vast majority of bidders being retail investors in terms of the number of applications.

The company disclosed that 2,453 individual investors participated in the transaction in which the number of institutional investors was 574.

Within the same month, EABL’s medium-term note raised Sh16.76 billion, surpassing the initial target of Sh11 billion. The brewer did not disclose how much of the demand came from retail investors.

Overall, institutional investors, including insurance companies, pension funds, investment banks and brokers, reduced their participation at the Nairobi bourse, with at least 29 exiting the market in the three months to December.

The share of corporate bond value held by institutional investors declined to 90.7 percent from 92.3 percent in September, reflecting rising interest from retail investors.

The two bond issues also boosted turnover and trading in the corporate bond secondary market. Value traded rose to Sh840 million in 2025 from Sh40 million in 2024.

‘Notably, corporate bonds traded [in the secondary market] during the fourth quarter of 2025, recording a turnover of Sh203.49 million, compared with Sh107.85 million in third quarter of 2025,’ the CMA said in its quarterly market update.

The two bonds issued in December brought the total number of listed corporate bonds to seven. EABL’s previous bond was issued in 2021, raising Sh11 billion, and was redeemed with the proceeds of the December bond.

Safaricom’s bond was the first tranche of a Sh40 billion medium-term note programme, and the company is expected to return to the market to raise a second tranche.

Beyond corporate bonds, retail investors’ appetite is rising across other asset classes, including government bonds, equities and collective investment schemes.

The Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) has reopened the harvesting and trading of locally produced macadamia from February 1, 2026, after a mid-season survey showed that a significant share of the crop has reached maturity.

The move lifts a seasonal closure that had taken effect on December 1 last year, and which was initially set to run until February 15, 2026, as part of efforts to safeguard kernel quality and protect Kenya’s reputation in premium export markets.

In a public notice on Thursday, AFA Director-General Bruno Linyiru said the decision followed a targeted macadamia maturity surveillance exercise conducted this January across major growing counties.

‘The authority continued to monitor crop maturity trends and enforce compliance during the closure period, particularly in response to reported violations in some production areas,’ said Dr Linyiru.

‘The surveillance findings revealed variable maturity levels across agro-ecological zones. Most nuts in lower-altitude coffee-growing zones had attained physiological maturity, with some mature nuts naturally dropping to the ground.”

In contrast, AFA noted, nuts in higher-altitude tea-growing zones were found to be largely immature, reinforcing concerns about premature harvesting.

‘In view of these findings, and following requests from stakeholders, the authority will officially re-open the harvesting and trading of macadamia nuts effective February 1, 2026. AFA strongly urges all stakeholders, particularly farmers, to harvest only mature nuts and allow immature ones to develop,” AFA said.

Kenya, one of the world’s leading macadamia exporters, has in recent years grappled with fluctuating quality and volatile prices blamed on early picking and unregulated trading by middlemen.

Processors have repeatedly warned that immature nuts result in low kernel recovery, reduced oil content and poor shelf life, undermining competitiveness in export markets that demand strict quality specifications.

Section 43 of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act, 2013, prohibits the export of raw macadamia except with written approval from the Agriculture Cabinet Secretary.

In 2024, processors faced heightened competition from Chinese buyers after the government temporarily lifted the export ban on raw nuts, known as nut-in-shell (NIS), to address a glut that had driven farm-gate prices down from a high of Sh180 per kilogramme to Sh30.

Kenya’s macadamia industry remains a key foreign exchange earner, with exports destined for markets in the United States, Europe, and Asia, where buyers place a premium on consistency and traceability.

According to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) Economic Survey 2025, Kenya had 11,090 hectares under macadamia production in 2024, producing 51,200 tonnes worth Sh4.95 billion.

A new body has added to the currently complex geopolitical landscape. The Board of Peace was formally launched in January 22, when American President Donald Trump signed its charter at the 57th World Economic Forum in Davos.

Play Video

Supporters see it as an agile alternative to collective action by the UN Security Council to facilitate reconstruction planning in Gaza. Critics, however, view it as means to sidestep existing multilateral system or to redirect funding from UN organisations. Others also think of it as a ‘pay-to-play’ club of world leaders to avoid collective decision making.

Launch of the board is a potentially profound point at which global governance takes an unexpected turn especially considering the influence held by its architect.

Emerging from a US-brokered framework welcomed by the UN Security Council, the board is being positioned as a pragmatic response to institutional paralysis, particularly around Gaza’s reconstruction.

But beneath the language of efficiency and agility is silence on what this new architecture means for developing nations within the rules-based international order in representation and access to collective solutions.

Multilateralism is such a practical necessity for several countries in the Global South that they tend to drag their feet whenever a new idea comes in.

Institutions such as the UN provide smaller and less powerful states with a forum where their sovereignty can be strongly argued, even if it just an illusion. It is also where international law offers at least some insulation.

Outside this formal process, the board may inadvertently reinforce a world influenced by financial muscle and executive-level diplomacy.

Proponents argue that the board’s appeal lies precisely in its speed and flexibility in getting things done. They argue that traditional multilateral bodies are slow-moving and hamstrung by vetoes and bureaucratic inertia.

From this perspective, the board represents a necessary innovation, a way to mobilise resources and political will when conventional channels stall. The irony, however, is that the US is one of the veto wielding superpowers.

History offers sobering lessons about externally driven reconstruction efforts that prioritise donor interests and a nation’s financial might.

The scepticism expressed by close US allies such as France and the UK mirrors broader nervousness a majority of nations have with a highly fragmented global governance.

If powerful states increasingly favour tailored coalitions, developing nations get sidelined from decisions that directly affect their existence.

The ‘pay-to-play’ perception already raises fears that access to peace-building platforms could become contingent on economic or political alignment rather than international norms.

More fundamentally, the Board of Peace challenges the principle of collective legitimacy. The UN system, for all its flaws, derives authority from universal membership.

Its resolutions, agencies and peace-building frameworks carry moral and legal weight because they emerge from a broad multilateral consensus.

Coming at a time when the US is withdrawing from several international organisations, the new body is projecting an image of peace as a premium product that is designed and delivered by a narrow group of global power brokers.

If it becomes a template for resolving complex global crises, it is likely to accelerate the intentional undermining of UN efforts for specialised interventions.

Countries with specific interests or even individuals with Nobel Peace Prize ambitions can disrupt global order at will. This means reduced leverage and fewer safeguards for developing nations with a more aggressive transactional global order.

However, it is not all gloom and doom for developing nations. This moment presents an opportunity for the Global South to take advantage of the diversion to pursue reform of existing multilateral structures.

The fact is that the board is almost a personal initiative of Trump. Its influence may just go as far as his tenure and may be deprived of funding should another president, possibly a Democrat, take over in America in three years.

This is enough time for emerging economies to organise diplomatically, build coalitions across regional blocs and push for long-overdue reforms within the UN system especially around UN Security Council representation and development financing.

Unlike long-standing international organizations whose mandates and budgets are enshrined in treaties and sustained through successive administrations, the Board’s funding and US political backing could rapidly evaporate if the presidency switches hands.

The board’s charter explicitly centers Trump as its chair with exceptional control over membership, decision-making, structure and succession, features that make it structurally dependent on his continued influence and political clout.

A future administration, especially one opposed to Trump’s vision, could withdraw diplomatic support and reduce or eliminate funding. Thus, stripping the Board of both its operational resources and the symbolic weight that comes from American leadership.

In essence, the Board’s survival beyond Trump depends less on its formal mandate and more on political continuity which is not guaranteed once the architect of the initiative exits the global stage.

The protracted legal battle over Kenya’s biggest betting brand, SportPesa, has loomed over the country’s fast-growing gambling industry for nearly five years.

What began as a private shareholder dispute evolved into a far broader contest, surfacing uncomfortable and instructive lessons on corporate governance, the exercise of corporate power, and limits of litigation as a business strategy.

It also replayed a familiar pattern in high-value commercial disputes: forum shopping-seeking a more favourable jurisdiction once domestic avenues are exhausted.

In an industry that has become one of Kenya’s largest commercial sponsors of sport, a major contributor to the Sports, Arts and Social Development Fund, and a key financier of national projects such as Talanta Stadium, stability of its leading operator was never merely a private concern. It went to the financial health and credibility of the entire sector.

When control of SportPesa was destabilised through prolonged litigation, the effects rippled far beyond shareholders-to clubs, federations, and public projects dependent on betting-derived revenues.

Gambling has become one of the largest private funding pipelines for sports development, channelling statutory levies into the Sports Development Fund and underwriting sponsorships the public sector cannot finance on its own.

The genesis of the saga lay in the transfer of the SportPesa brand. Mr Paul Wanderi Ndungu prosecuted his case with zeal before the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), and the courts, alleging that the brand had been fraudulently transferred to a new entity, Milestone Games Limited, through forgery.

He did not stop at litigation. Court records reveal an aggressive lobbying directed at the Presidency, the Cabinet Secretary for Interior, the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB), and even Safaricom. Regulators were petitioned, executives accused, and State institutions drawn into what amounted to a sustained reputational siege.

In letters heavy with conspiracy theories, Mr Ndungu alleged that regulators and chief executives of reputable companies were colluding to facilitate ‘tax evasion’ and ‘money laundering’. These allegations, however, were never proved in court.

In 2022, a Nairobi High Court delivered the first decisive blow to this narrative. Justice A.K. Ndungu affirmed Milestone Games’ lawful right to use the SportPesa trademark and dismissed claims of fraud and forgery.

The court found that the due diligence and administrative processes undertaken by the Registrar of Trade Marks were valid. Legally, the story of the ‘stolen brand’ was laid to rest.

But the dispute did not end there. With domestic remedies exhausted, the battle shifted to the United Kingdom, recast as a shareholder oppression claim. Mr Ndungu argued that capital raises at SportPesa Global Holdings Limited were designed to unlawfully dilute his stake.

The UK High Court’s response is instructive for industry participants. The court assessed the capital raises not as abstract governance questions but within their commercial context: a company under financial strain seeking survival capital. It found the transactions justified, necessary, and lawful.

Crucially, the court observed that Mr Ndungu lacked the financial capacity to participate meaningfully in the capital raises. That finding reframes the dispute entirely. This was not exclusion from ownership; it was an inability to fund ownership.

Was this vexatious litigation? The scale and nature of the costs order suggest the court thought so. An interim costs award running into hundreds of millions of shillings is not routine. It reflects a judicial conclusion that the litigation imposed disproportionate cost and disruption without merit.

For industry players, the signal is clear: courts-particularly in mature commercial jurisdictions-are increasingly unwilling to indulge litigation deployed as a competitive or coercive weapon.

The case also offers a pointed lesson on forum shopping. Moving disputes across borders does not rehabilitate weak claims; it exposes them to stricter scrutiny. Jurisdictional arbitrage has limits.

Are there lessons on corporate governance? Unequivocally. For boards, regulators, and investors, the SportPesa saga underscores several hard realities. First, documented process matters. Both the Kenyan and UK courts relied heavily on paper trails-board resolutions, regulatory filings, and capital-raising records.

Second, capital is control. Shareholding rights in capital-intensive industries cannot be preserved through litigation alone. They must be defended by the ability to fund growth and weather distress.

With the litigation now effectively settled, SportPesa’s renewed investments-more than KSh 1.12 billion in league sponsorships and major commitments to rugby and national sports events-signal an industry reset. This is less about corporate vindication than the restoration of market normalcy.

In the end, the courts affirmed a simple but unforgiving principle of modern corporate life: ownership is sustained not by narratives or pressure, but by evidence, process, and financial commitment.

The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (Kippra) faces a legal challenge over its ongoing external recruitment of 43 senior officers, including directors and managers.

An employee has moved to court claiming that the State-owned policy think tank unlawfully sidelined qualified staff and breached its own hiring rules.

In a case filed at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, Moses Njenga alleges that Kippra’s executive director bypassed mandatory internal recruitment procedures by advertising senior positions externally without first considering employees.

The dispute stems from a recruitment advertisement published on December 16, 2025, in two newspapers, inviting external applicants for 43 vacancies, including directors, policy analysts, managers, and a corporation secretary (legal).

Mr Njenga contends that Kippra, which operates under the Treasury, disregarded its Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual.

According to the manual, adopted in January 2020, vacancies from grades KIP 4 to KIP 10 must first be filled through internal promotions and advertisements before external hiring is considered.

The policy mandates that management exhaust all qualified internal candidates before opening positions to outsiders.

The legal dispute highlights the tension between internal career progression and open recruitment practices in public institutions.

Mr Njenga argues that none of the 43 positions were advertised internally beforehand, effectively locking out eligible staff.

‘The decision was premature and illegal,’ Mr Njenga states in his court filings, asserting that Kippra lacks justifiable reason to skip employees.

He further claims that no internal assessment was conducted to determine whether qualified candidates existed within the institute before the external advertisement was published. The lawsuit names Kippra’s executive director and the Attorney-General as respondents.

Mr Njenga also alleges that the recruitment decision violated his legitimate expectation as an employee, citing assurances that internal procedures would be followed.

‘I had the legitimate expectation that the respondent would adhere to the Human Resource manual and ensure internal recruitment was exhausted first,’ he states in his affidavit.

Before seeking court intervention, Mr Njenga attempted to resolve the matter internally by raising concerns with his supervisor, the head of the department, and the human resources office.

However, he claims these efforts were ignored, prompting legal action. He now seeks interim orders to halt the ongoing recruitment pending the court’s determination of the case.

‘The respondent purported to exercise discretion by bypassing mandatory internal recruitment methods,’ the court documents state, emphasising that the decision unfairly deprived staff of their rightful priority under the institute’s policy.

Kippra, established under statute, plays a pivotal role in shaping public policy and advising the government on economic and social matters.

Its executive director oversees daily operations in consultation with the board, but Mr Njenga argues that this mandate must still comply with internal policies and the Fair Administrative Action Act.

The matter is scheduled for mention on February 16, 2026, where the court will determine whether to grant Mr Njenga’s requests for interim orders and further directions on the suit.

The outcome could set a precedent on the enforceability of internal HR policies in public bodies, reinforcing accountability in recruitment processes.

In his judicial review application, Mr Njenga seeks orders to quash the advertisement and prohibit KIPPRA from proceeding with external recruitment without adhering to due process.

He maintains that the decision breached principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness.

‘The decision is tainted with illegality and procedural unfairness,’ the petition asserts, arguing that inviting external candidates before exhausting internal options constituted an abuse of discretion and an error of law.

Internal promotion policies are designed to reward experience, retain institutional knowledge, and motivate employees.

Deviations from such policies often trigger disputes and litigation, as seen in this case. Mr Njenga further requests court orders compelling KIPPRA to restart the recruitment process by first conducting internal promotions and advertisements.

The case highlights broader concerns about governance and compliance within state agencies, particularly regarding adherence to internal policies in recruitment.

Human and animal feed maker Unga Limited has obtained temporary court protection in a trademark dispute with Nanyuki-based Daiga Millers over the use of the ‘Hodari’ brand on maize flour products.

The High Court in Nanyuki ruled that Unga had presented a compelling argument demonstrating that Daiga Millers’ use of the Hodari name risked misleading consumers and unfairly capitalising on Unga’s established goodwill in the regional market.

The court issued interim orders prohibiting Daiga Millers from importing, packaging, distributing, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, selling or offering maize meal products bearing the Hodari trademark until the case is fully heard and determined.

Unga told the court that it holds registered trademark rights for Hodari in Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar and Uganda, having invested significantly in advertising and sales across East Africa.

Court documents show that the dispute began in November 2024, when Unga discovered that Daiga Millers was producing and selling maize meal under the Hodari brand without authorisation.

Unga accused Daiga Millers of trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and violations of consumer protection laws, alleging that the miller was exploiting the reputation of an established brand.

In granting Unga’s application, the judge ruled that using the same name on identical products posed a genuine risk of consumer confusion.

‘The respondent’s use of ‘Hodari’ on maize meal products – identical to those marketed by the applicant – creates a likelihood of confusion,’ the court stated.

The ruling clarified that trademark law does not require proof of actual confusion at this preliminary stage, noting that demonstrating the potential for deception is sufficient. The court emphasised that trademarks serve as indicators of origin, enabling consumers to differentiate between competing products.

Unga also argued that monetary compensation would be an insufficient remedy.

The judge agreed, noting that market confusion would ‘undoubtedly harm the applicant’s reputation, goodwill, and profits’, losses that would be difficult to quantify or remedy later.

Daiga Millers did not file a substantive response to the application, despite entering an appearance through its advocate, leaving Unga’s evidence largely uncontested at this interim stage.

Beyond halting sales, the court directed Daiga Millers to surrender all infringing products, packaging materials, documents and equipment associated with Hodari-branded maize meal.

The miller was further prohibited from adopting any branding resembling Unga’s products pending trial.

The lawsuit will now proceed to a full hearing, where the court will determine whether trademark infringement and passing off occurred and what final remedies, including damages or restitution of profits, should apply.

The case underscores the commercial value attached to brand identity in Kenya’s staple food market, where maize flour is both a dietary essential and a fiercely contested commodity.

For major manufacturers, trademarks represent vital assets linked to consumer trust, pricing power and market dominance.