In Kenya’s long fight against corruption, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Ingonga, has become a matter of serious concern. His latest move to drop corruption charges in the rice and oil import scandal has once again raised doubts about his commitment to pursuing justice.
The case, which involved billions of shillings in questionable deals through the Kenya National Trading Corporation, was seen as a test of whether the country could hold officials accountable for misusing public funds.
Instead, Ingonga has once again fallen back on the excuse of “insufficient evidence,” a phrase that has now become a shield for the powerful.
The scandal was never just about numbers on paper. It directly touched the lives of ordinary Kenyans who were promised cheaper food when the government rushed to import rice and edible oil in 2023 and 2024.
What began as a relief effort to counter rising global prices quickly turned into a story of inflated contracts, sidelined procedures, and outright theft.
Former KNTC boss Pamela Mutua ended up in court, while others who allegedly shared responsibility are now walking free because the DPP decided to cut them loose.
When prosecutions collapse this easily, it is the poor, not the politicians or business insiders, who bear the real cost. This is not the first time Ingonga has chosen to abandon high-profile cases.
From the Sh7.6 billion Triton oil fraud that dragged on for years without results, to the Kitui water project graft case and even politically sensitive prosecutions like that of former Cabinet Secretary Aisha Jumwa, the pattern is the same.
Charges are dropped, suspects are freed, and the country is left with unanswered questions. Each time, Ingonga cites lack of evidence or uncooperative witnesses, yet Kenyans are left wondering why the DPP’s office consistently fails to build strong cases despite the resources at its disposal.
The image this creates is one of a prosecutor more eager to close files than to secure convictions. Critics have branded him the “master of withdrawals,” accusing him of running an office that protects the powerful while ensuring the small offenders face the full weight of the law. It is a dangerous perception, especially in a nation where public trust in institutions is already fragile.
Kenya’s listing by the Financial Action Task Force for weak money laundering controls only worsens the picture, as global partners see these failures as proof that the justice system cannot handle financial crimes effectively.
The rice and oil import scandal should have been a turning point. Instead, it has become another reminder of how impunity survives under Ingonga’s watch. Ordinary Kenyans, who endure high living costs and pay taxes faithfully, see leaders escape accountability without consequence. Each collapsed case is not just a legal setback; it is a betrayal of public trust.
Ingonga may claim the law ties his hands, but to many Kenyans, he is the one untying the knots that should keep corrupt officials bound to justice. Without change, his legacy will not be one of fighting corruption but of normalizing its protection.
Add Comment