President William Ruto is facing fresh scrutiny following claims that his office intervened to stop the arrest of Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) Director General Luka Kimeli over a disputed Sh3 billion road tender.
While the allegations have attracted widespread public attention, they remain unverified, with no publicly released phone records, official correspondence or investigation files confirming that State House influenced the matter.
Neither the Presidency nor the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has publicly confirmed that an arrest had been planned or blocked.
The controversy revolves around Tender No. KeNHA/2915/2025 for the upgrading of the Masara to Muhuru Bay road. Court documents filed in the case have raised serious concerns about how the procurement process was handled, particularly the decision to recommend a bidder whose price was significantly higher than that of a competing company.
According to the court records, KeNHA intended to award the contract to Lafey Construction Company Limited at a cost of Sh3,013,648,316.91.
However, another company, Ricons General Services Company Limited, had submitted an evaluated bid of Sh2,777,395,507.39. The difference between the two bids was more than Sh236 million, yet the records presented in court do not provide a clear public explanation as to why the higher bid was preferred.
The case became even more serious after questions emerged about documents submitted by Lafey Construction to prove its previous work experience.
During the verification process, the documents were sent to China Railway No. 5 Engineering Group Company Limited for confirmation.
China Railway responded by stating that it had no knowledge of Lafey Construction. The company said it had never subcontracted Lafey in Kenya or any other country and had never issued or authorised the documents bearing its name.
It also stated that a KeNHA letter dated December 19, 2025, which supposedly sought confirmation of Lafey’s work history, had never reached the company.
The Chinese contractor further disowned the certificates presented during the procurement process and maintained that the documents did not originate from its offices.
These responses have become a central part of the legal challenge now before the High Court.
Lawyers representing complainant Francis Kinyua demanded the immediate suspension of the intended contract award. They also called for a forensic examination of the disputed documents and requested that all KeNHA officials involved in evaluating the tender be identified.
In addition, they urged that the matter be referred to EACC and other investigative agencies for possible criminal investigations.
The complaint argues that Lafey Construction lacked the technical experience it claimed in its bid and that some of the documents relied upon during the evaluation process were questionable. It also alleges that the email address and telephone numbers used in the correspondence said to be from China Railway were not the company’s official contacts.
Despite receiving the complaint, KeNHA continued processing the procurement before later announcing that it had launched an internal review. The authority did not immediately confirm whether the tender had been suspended after receiving China Railway’s written denial.KeNHA later terminated the tender under Section 63 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
However, the petitioner argues that the cancellation came after a notification of intention to award had already been issued, making the termination legally questionable. Just five days later, KeNHA advertised a fresh tender for the same road project.
The High Court petition seeks access to procurement records, evaluation reports, scoring sheets, committee minutes, professional opinions and all documents used during the due diligence process. It also asks the court to declare the intended award to Lafey Construction unlawful and void, arguing that it was based on disputed documents and a flawed procurement process.
Kimeli, who served as acting KeNHA Director General from July 2025 before his appointment was confirmed in February 2026, was leading the authority during the procurement process now under challenge.
Court documents raise questions about several stages of the tender, including how Lafey’s experience was evaluated, how the supporting documents were verified, who approved their use and who recommended the company for the award despite the higher price.
Separate reports have also claimed that Kimeli has remained protected because some KeNHA contracts are allegedly being used to raise money for future political campaigns. However, no public documentary evidence has been released to support claims that he collected campaign funds, acted under presidential instructions or directed tender proceeds to political organisations.
What is publicly documented is the disputed Sh3 billion tender, the Sh236 million difference between competing bids and the documents that were rejected by the company whose name they carried. Meanwhile, claims of presidential intervention remain unverified, even as they continue to draw attention to the pace of investigations, Kimeli’s continued stay in office and the absence of any announced arrests linked to the disputed procurement process.
Add Comment