In his remarks delivered by the Director of Public Complaints, Mr. Bernard Nyakwaka, the Director of Criminal Investigations, Mr. Mohamed I. Amin, congratulated the officers on their successful selection following a rigorous recruitment and vetting process, and urged them to anchor their conduct in integrity as they prepare to confront the evolving threat of narcotics trafficking and transnational organized crime.

“Build and guard your integrity from the outset. It is the cornerstone of your credibility as an investigator and the foundation upon which the public’s trust in this Directorate rests,” said Amin.

The Director, Narcotics Investigations Bureau, Mr. Samuel Laboso, noted that running Cohorts IV and V together reflects the growing demand for trained narcotics investigators across the country, and challenged the participants to remain committed throughout the course.

“Two cohorts training side by side means we are scaling up the Bureau’s capacity to match the pace at which trafficking networks are adapting. What you learn here will directly determine how effectively we disrupt those networks,” said Laboso.

The Commandant, NCIA, Mr. Ibrahim Jillo, reaffirmed the Academy’s commitment to delivering competency-based training that develops investigators with the technical capability, professionalism and integrity required in modern law enforcement.

“Bringing two cohorts through this course concurrently is a deliberate investment in the Bureau’s readiness. I urge each of you to take this seriously, not only for your own growth but for the strength it adds to the wider narcotics investigations function,” said Jillo.

The course forms part of NCIA’s mandate to build a pipeline of skilled, professional investigators equipped to respond to Kenya’s evolving crime landscape. Participants will undergo instruction combining classroom-based learning with hands-on casework simulations, sharpening the practical skills required for real-world narcotics investigations.

Years after the shocking deaths of Benson Njiru Ndwiga and Emmanuel Mutura Ndwiga, popularly known as the Kianjokoma brothers, their family is still seeking answers and justice over what they describe as a painful and unnecessary loss of two young lives.

The brothers, aged 22 and 19, died in August 2021 after they were arrested by police officers in Kianjokoma town, Embu County, during the enforcement of COVID-19 curfew regulations. Their deaths sparked national outrage and renewed calls for accountability over alleged police brutality.

According to family accounts, Benson and Emmanuel were arrested after leaving a local entertainment spot. When they failed to return home and their phones became unreachable, their relatives launched a search that led them to various police stations.

They later discovered that the two brothers had died and their bodies were lying at Embu Level Five Hospital mortuary.

The circumstances surrounding their deaths immediately raised questions. Police initially claimed that the brothers died after allegedly jumping from a moving police vehicle while being taken to the station.

However, the explanation was challenged by witnesses, the family and later medical evidence presented during court proceedings.

Witnesses who appeared before court gave accounts suggesting that the brothers were assaulted before being taken away by police officers. Some testified that they saw the two being beaten during the arrest, contradicting the police version of events.

A key part of the prosecution case has been medical evidence indicating that the brothers died from injuries caused by blunt force trauma, raising doubts about claims that their deaths resulted from a fall from a moving vehicle.

Following investigations by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), six police officers were arrested and charged in connection with the deaths.

The officers denied the charges, and the matter has continued through the judicial process.

For the Ndwiga family, however, the slow progress of the case has brought more pain. They say they have been forced to endure years of waiting while mourning two sons whose lives were cut short under controversial circumstances.

The Kianjokoma brothers’ case has remained a painful reminder of the challenges facing Kenya in addressing deaths occurring during police operations and the urgent need for accountability within law enforcement agencies.

Human rights groups and many Kenyans continue to call for a transparent and timely conclusion of the case, arguing that justice delayed only deepens the suffering of affected families.

For Benson and Emmanuel’s family, the question remains: when will justice finally come for the Kianjokoma brothers?

He earned his MBChB from the University of Nairobi (1975), followed by specialized psychiatric credentials in London, a PhD, and a prestigious Doctor of Science (DSc) degree.

Rose Mbithe Mulwa (formerly Rose Mbithe Ndetei) is a Kenyan businesswoman, politician, and the ex-wife of David Ndetei. Born and raised in iveti, Machakos County, she has maintained a public profile spanning across business, philanthropy, and ran for the Governor of Machakos County in the 2022 general elections, losing the seat to Wavinya Ndeti.

Rose Mbithe Mulwa and Professor David Musyimi Ndetei were officially divorced in 2001, bringing an end to their 31-year marriage. Prof. David Ndetei’s 31-year marriage to his first wife, Rose Mbithe Mulwa, officially ended in a bitter divorce. A subsequent official gazette notice confirming her name change was published in May 2003.

Following the dissolution of that first marriage, Prof. Ndetei subsequently married Dr. Victoria Mutiso following the finalization of the divorce. Court submissions from recent legal proceedings confirm the union occurred more than two decades ago. They shared two children together. Dr. Mutiso, a prominent clinical psychologist and mental health researcher, was fatally shot on July 29, 2026, in Upper Hill, Nairobi.

Following the 2001 divorce, in 2002, Rose Mulwa filed a landmark case under the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 to claim a share of Prof. Ndetei’s multi-million shilling estate under High Court Civil Case (HCCC) No. 6A of 2002. She ultimately lost the main matrimonial distribution suit, with courts ruling against her claims for a direct split of the properties. While she lost the main suit, the loss triggered a 24-year cycle of bitter civil side-battles, appeals, and property disputes.

The cornerstone of this decades-long conflict is a prime, highly valuable parcel of land legally registered as L.R. No. 1504/13. The property is a prime tract measuring over 20 acres (often referenced as 25 acres in various legal filings) situated in the North West of the Athi River Township / Mlolongo zone within Machakos District. Because of its proximity to the Mombasa Highway and Nairobi, its commercial value skyrocketed into billions of shillings over the last two decades.

During their marriage, the land was a core family asset. Following the split, Prof. Ndetei retained the title and launched agricultural and residential projects on the property. The land also became the subject of separate, highly publicized multi-million shilling litigations:

In the early 2000s, Prof. Ndetei successfully sued a neighboring factory, Orbit Chemical Industries, claiming their factory’s storm water and chemical discharge ruined the agricultural usability of this specific Athi River parcel. He was eventually awarded over Ksh 269 million in damages.

The land was also entangled in commercial financing legal disputes with institutions like Daima Bank and Housing Finance Company of Kenya regarding charges registered against the title deed.

During the highly contentious 2001 divorce and the subsequent 2002 matrimonial property division lawsuit, the late lawyer, Mathew Kyalo Mbobu served as the primary legal counsel representing Professor David Ndetei.

As the legal battles dragged on and legal fees escalated, a portion of the disputed 25-acre Athi River property was temporarily transferred and registered into Kyalo Mbobu’s name. This transfer was heavily contested by Rose Mbithe Mulwa, who claimed it was a fraudulent maneuver to strip her of her matrimonial share and shield the asset from the ongoing division-of-property suit.

Outraged by the land transfer, Rose Mulwa publicly accused lawyer Kyalo Mbobu of unprofessional conduct and collusion. In response, Mbobu filed a massive defamation lawsuit against Rose Mulwa in 2004, claiming she had severely damaged his professional reputation as a senior advocate.

Following years of legal back-and-forth and eventual court rulings that favored Prof. Ndetei in the main matrimonial property suit, the land title was eventually cleared of its encumbrances and transferred back to Prof. Ndetei and his second wife, Dr. Victoria Mutiso.

On the evening of Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Mathew Kyalo Mbobu was brutally assassinated in a targeted execution. Up until the night he was shot dead along Magadi Road, Mbobu remained the central figure blocking Rose Mulwa’s legal attempts to seize or auction the disputed 25 acres land in Mlolongo.

The assassination of prominent Nairobi attorney Mathew Kyalo Mbobu occurred on the evening of Tuesday, September 9, 2025, along Magadi Road in Karen, Nairobi. The attack sent shockwaves through the country due to its execution-style, predetermined nature.

At around 5:09 PM, Mbobu left his Nairobi office and began driving home toward his Bogani residence in Karen. He was actively trailed by hitmen riding a motorcycle.

As his vehicle slowed down due to evening traffic along Magadi Road, the motorcycle pulled up right beside his car door. An assailant dismounted, pulled out a firearm, and opened fire into the vehicle at point-blank range. The gunmen immediately sped off into the traffic on their motorbike, leaving the vehicle at the scene. No valuables or money were stolen from his car, suggesting it was a targeted hit.

An official postmortem examination conducted by government pathologists revealed that Mbobu was shot 8 times. The vast majority of the bullets penetrated from his right side, indicating the killer fired straight through the driver’s side window. The cause of death was certified as massive internal bleeding resulting from severe trauma to the neck and spinal column.

Immediately following the killing, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Homicide Unit took over the case and pursued multiple financial and land-related motives, but all the trails grew cold.

Seeking to reclaim a stake in the asset, Rose Mulwa filed a fresh civil suit at the Machakos Law Courts naming Dr. Mutiso as a primary defendant. Shortly after the Machakos lawsuit intensified, the legal gridlock culminated in a highly aggressive enforcement that resulted in the physical eviction and demolition of residential properties belonging to Dr. Mutiso’s family on the Athi River land.

On February 12, 2026, a highly chaotic and aggressive raid took place at the Mlolongo residential home of the late Dr. Victoria Mutiso and her husband, Professor David Ndetei. The events of that day completely shifted the nature of the 25-year matrimonial property dispute from a civil courtroom battle into a violent criminal investigation.

According to police and court records, a large group of hired individuals—accompanied by police officers allegedly led by a senior officer from the Mlolongo Police Station—invaded the approximately 20-acre property. Under the guise of enforcing a Machakos court-issued eviction notice, they used heavy machinery to completely flatten and demolish the residential properties belonging to Dr. Mutiso’s family, causing millions of shillings in property damage.

The execution of the eviction went far beyond a standard property demolition. In her subsequent complaints to the police, Dr. Mutiso alleged that the raiding party assailed the home and destroyed their personal belongings, attempted to forcefully abduct her and her husband, and stole several personal vehicles that were parked securely within the family compound.

Dr. Mutiso went to the Mlolongo Police Station immediately on February 12 to report the break-in, property destruction, and attempted abduction. However, she later stated that a senior local police commander actively interfered with the process. Because of this internal interference, the station refused to log the incident on the day it occurred, and Dr. Mutiso was only able to secure an official police entry months later, in May 2026, under OB Number 42/04/05/2026.

On the morning of Wednesday, July 29, 2026, in the Upper Hill area of Nairobi, as Dr. Mutiso’s taxi was navigating traffic, a Toyota Prado intentionally drove in front of the uber car, forcing the taxi driver to slow down and come to a halt. Immediately after the vehicle was blocked, hitmen riding on a motorcycle pulled up alongside the rear passenger window. The pillion passenger pulled out a firearm and shot Dr. Mutiso at close range before speeding off. The attackers did not steal any money, electronics, or personal belongings from the vehicle, signaling a clear premeditated contract killing.

The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Homicide Unit has officially linked the September 9, 2025, assassination of lawyer Mathew Kyalo Mbobu and the July 29, 2026, assassination of Dr. Victoria Mutiso under a single investigation baseline.

In both assassinations, the two victims were primary targets of hostility stemming from the same 25-year matrimonial property dispute following the 2001 divorce of Rose Mbithe Mulwa and Prof. David Ndetei. Lawyer Kyalo Mbobu was the long-term legal counsel who represented Prof. Ndetei in court, successfully shielding and preserving the title of the multi-million shilling 20-acre Athi River land (L.R. No. 1504/13) against Rose Mulwa’s claims while Dr. Victoria Mutiso was Prof. Ndetei’s second wife and was explicitly named as the third defendant in Rose Mulwa’s fresh civil lawsuit seeking to reclaim a stake in that exact asset.

Both hits were carefully timed to exploit Nairobi’s traffic jams. Mbobu was struck while stuck in an evening traffic snarl-up along Magadi Road in Karen while Dr. Mutiso was ambushed while commuting in a taxi during morning traffic in Upper Hill.

In both executions, hitmen were riding on motorcycles, and in both cases, the pillion passengers pulled alongside the victims’ vehicles, opened fire at close range, and immediately melted back into the city traffic. Neither attack involved any element of theft. The attackers left cash, electronic devices, and personal belongings inside the vehicles completely untouched, verifying that both incidents were pre-planned contract killings.

Both victims were subjected to professional, point-blank fire directed primarily at their upper bodies to guarantee a fatal outcome. Mbobu succumbed to 8 gunshot wounds targeting his neck and upper body; Dr. Mutiso succumbed to 3 gunshot wounds, two to her head and one to her upper back. Both victims were killed while actively entangled in escalating friction over the land title. Dr. Mutiso was killed exactly 24 days after reporting to the Kilimani Police Station that a motorcycle gunman had tracked and pulled a pistol on her.

Immediately after the July 29 assassination along Ralph Bunche Road, DCI forensic teams swept the Upper Hill crime scene. They successfully extracted two spent cartridges and one bullet head, forwarding them to the National Forensic Laboratory for instant ballistic profiling. Detectives also seized and locked down the taxi involved for deep forensic examination while pulling CCTV footage from all surrounding office buildings to map the getaways.

The primary breakthrough occurred when surveillance teams tracked the registration and chassis details of the Toyota Prado used by the spotters to block Dr. Mutiso’s taxi. DCI data banks revealed that the SUV was not a randomly bought vehicle; it was explicitly identified as one of the vehicles reported missing or stolen during the disputed, hostile February 12 demolition of Dr. Mutiso’s family compound in Mlolongo. This provided immediate, actionable proof connecting the homicide back to the land battle.

Homicide detectives audited records at local police stations and pulled a critical report from the Kilimani Police Station. They confirmed that exactly 24 days prior to her murder, Dr. Mutiso reported surviving a July 7 ambush near Junction Mall, where motorcycle-riding men pointed a gun at her. In that active file, her husband, Prof. David Ndetei, had recorded a formal statement explicitly naming his son, Chris Mulwa, as the armed pillion passenger riding that motorcycle.

Armed with the vehicle nexus and the prior identification, an elite DCI operational team staged a midnight raid at Rose Mulwa’s family residence in Karen. During the sweep, detectives seized Over 40 mobile phones, a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle, and multiple personal electronic devices and computers.

Cybercrime and forensic units are currently auditing these mobile phones to map out call data logs, geographical tracking trails, and financial transactions. Detectives believe these communication trails will link the mother and son directly to the contract hitmen, who are still at large.

Following these findings, Rose Mbithe Mulwa and her son Chris Mulwa were arrested on Thursday, July 30, 2026. The DCI homicide detectives apprehended them at their residence in Karen, Nairobi, during an intelligence-led operation just one day after the shooting of Dr. Victoria Mutiso. The duo was subsequently presented before the Milimani Law Courts the following morning, Friday, July 31, 2026.

In their formal application to hold the suspects for 30 days, investigators argued that keeping the mother and son in custody is necessary to prevent them from warning the shooters, remotely wiping, destroying, or altering call logs, text messages, and digital forensic data. The magistrate ordered them held through the weekend, with a definitive ruling on their 30-day detention set for Monday, August 3, 2026.

The online betting industry thrives on one simple promise: if you win, you get paid.

But for SportyBet, one of Africa’s largest betting companies, that promise has come under intense scrutiny after hundreds of bettors accused the company of withholding massive winnings and locking them out of their accounts.

What began as isolated complaints quickly exploded into one of the biggest betting controversies in Africa, drawing the attention of regulators, lawyers, consumer protection agencies, and anti-fraud investigators.

The N950 Million Unpaid Winnings Dispute

In 2024, more than 100 SportyBet customers in Nigeria filed complaints against the company after allegedly being denied access to winnings worth more than N950 million.

According to legal representatives acting for the affected customers, the bettors claimed that SportyBet blocked their accounts shortly after they won substantial amounts. The customers further alleged that the company demanded extensive personal information before refusing to process their payouts.

The dispute became so serious that petitions were reportedly filed with multiple agencies, including:

• Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
• Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC)
• National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC)
• National Data Protection Commission (NDPC)
• Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU)

Reports indicate that over 114 customers were involved in the complaint, making it one of the largest coordinated disputes ever faced by a betting company in the region.

SportyBet’s Defense: Alleged Bot Manipulation

SportyBet defended its actions by claiming some customers used automated systems, commonly referred to as “bots,” to exploit the platform and generate unfair betting advantages.

The company argued that the affected accounts were involved in suspicious activity and therefore did not qualify for normal payouts.

However, the customers strongly denied the allegations.

Their lawyers argued that the accusations were never adequately supported with evidence and that legitimate winners were being unfairly punished simply because they had won large amounts of money.

Court Ruling Raises More Questions

The controversy escalated further in 2026 when reports emerged that a Nigerian court dismissed a case filed by SportyBet against some of the affected customers.

According to reports from the proceedings, the court found that SportyBet failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting allegations of system manipulation and financial misconduct.

The court reportedly dismissed the company’s claims and declined to grant the reliefs it sought against the customers.

While the ruling did not automatically resolve the winnings dispute itself, it dealt a significant blow to SportyBet’s public position because the central allegations against the customers were not proven before the court.

A Dangerous Pattern for the Betting Industry

The SportyBet unpaid winnings controversy highlights a growing concern across Africa’s betting sector.

Many betting operators reserve broad powers in their terms and conditions that allow them to:

• Suspend accounts
• Delay withdrawals
• Investigate betting patterns
• Withhold funds during fraud reviews

SportyBet’s own published terms indicate that the company may withhold funds connected to what it considers unauthorised activity. However, critics argue that such provisions can become problematic when customers feel they have no transparent way to challenge decisions.

Consumer advocates warn that betting firms must strike a balance between fighting fraud and protecting legitimate winners.

Why This Matters to Kenyan Bettors

Kenya remains one of Africa’s largest betting markets, with millions of shillings wagered daily.

The SportyBet controversy serves as a warning to Kenyan gamblers:

• Always keep betting records.
• Save screenshots of winning slips.
• Retain withdrawal requests.
• Document conversations with customer support.
• Read betting terms before depositing money.

If disputes arise, evidence becomes critical.

The biggest concern raised by the SportyBet saga is not merely whether fraud occurred, but whether ordinary customers can realistically challenge powerful betting companies when payouts are disputed.

The Trust Problem Facing SportyBet

Trust is the currency of online gambling.

Once bettors begin questioning whether winnings will be paid, confidence in the platform can collapse quickly.

Although SportyBet continues to operate across several African markets, the unpaid winnings allegations, court battles, and regulatory complaints have created a reputational challenge that the company has yet to fully overcome.

Until regulators conclude their investigations and all outstanding disputes are resolved, the controversy will continue to cast a shadow over one of Africa’s most recognizable betting brands.

Conclusion

The SportyBet unpaid winnings controversy has evolved from customer complaints into a major legal and regulatory issue involving hundreds of millions of naira and more than 100 affected bettors.

While SportyBet maintains that suspicious activity justified its actions, customers insist they were unfairly denied legitimate winnings.

What remains clear is that the dispute has exposed serious questions about transparency, accountability, and consumer protection within Africa’s rapidly growing betting industry.

As investigations and legal proceedings continue, bettors across the continent will be watching closely.

A storm is brewing around betting giant OdiBets after explosive court proceedings and fresh investigations linked the company to one of the most controversial data privacy scandals in Kenya’s history.

The controversy follows a High Court ruling involving a massive Safaricom customer data breach that allegedly exposed sensitive personal information belonging to millions of Kenyans. The ruling has reignited questions about how betting companies accessed customer information and whether ordinary Kenyans became targets of aggressive gambling marketing campaigns without their consent.

According to court proceedings reported by multiple media outlets, sensitive customer information, including names, ID numbers, betting patterns, M-Pesa transaction records, and location data, was allegedly extracted from Safaricom systems and found its way into the hands of third parties connected to the betting ecosystem.

The case has now placed OdiBets Scandle under an uncomfortable spotlight.

Investigative reports indicate that authorities are examining allegations that betting operators may have benefited from unlawfully acquired subscriber data. While no court has convicted OdiBets of wrongdoing, the company’s name has repeatedly surfaced in reports surrounding the broader investigation.

What makes the scandal particularly disturbing is the nature of the information allegedly compromised.

Court documents cited by media reports describe data that went far beyond ordinary contact details. The information reportedly included financial behaviour, betting activity, and mobile money transaction patterns, exactly the type of information that could be used to identify and target vulnerable gamblers.

Privacy advocates argue that if such allegations are ultimately proven, it would represent one of the most serious abuses of consumer data ever witnessed in Kenya’s digital economy.

For years, betting companies have invested heavily in customer acquisition campaigns. The latest revelations are now raising difficult questions:

• How were millions of potential betting customers identified?
• Who supplied the data?
• Did consumers consent to the use of their information?
• Were privacy laws violated in the process?

The High Court’s findings against Safaricom have only intensified public scrutiny.

The court ruled that the constitutional rights of affected subscribers had been violated and awarded compensation to several petitioners. Legal experts say the ruling could open the door to further lawsuits and regulatory action involving entities that may have accessed or benefited from the leaked information.

For OdiBets, the timing could not be worse.

Kenya’s betting industry is already facing growing pressure from regulators, lawmakers, and consumer rights groups concerned about gambling addiction and aggressive marketing practices targeting young people.

Now, with the data privacy scandal dominating headlines, the company risks reputational damage even before investigators complete their work.

Industry observers say the scandal could become a defining test for Kenya’s Data Protection Act and determine whether major corporations can be held accountable when customer information is allegedly mishandled.

The central issue remains simple: millions of Kenyans trusted that their personal information would remain private.

Instead, court proceedings suggest that trust may have been severely compromised.

As investigations continue, OdiBets and other entities mentioned in the wider controversy will be under intense public scrutiny.

For now, the questions are growing faster than the answers.

And for Kenya’s betting industry, the fallout may only be beginning.

At the centre of the disagreement are claims and counterclaims involving Achuora, Elgon Group and Mercy Wamoto. The contractor maintains that services were delivered for the festival under an agreed arrangement, but payment has not been made in full despite repeated follow-ups.

The dispute has exposed the risks suppliers face when large public-facing events are organised through multiple players, including county officials, event coordinators, private firms and intermediaries. In such arrangements, contractors can find themselves caught between parties who each deny responsibility once invoices fall due.

The KSh3.8 million claim

According to documents and correspondence seen by this publication, the contractor’s claim stands at KSh3.8 million for work Muya and associates gain Sh4.7bn on Family Bank listingallegedly undertaken in connection with the Piny Luo festival.

The contractor says the assignment involved [insert nature of services: tents, staging, sound, catering, transport, branding, accommodation or other services] and that the work was completed after instructions were issued by representatives linked to the event.

However, the key question remains: who signed off on the engagement?

The contractor alleges that commitments were made by individuals acting on behalf of the organisers. But as the payment dispute has intensified, the parties named in the matter have reportedly pointed to each other over responsibility for the debt.

Achuora’s position

Achuora’s position, according to sources familiar with the dispute, is that [insert verified response or denial]. The position appears to be that any payment obligation should be traced to the party that formally contracted the supplier or controlled the relevant budget.

If this position is maintained, it would place renewed focus on the paperwork: purchase orders, local service orders, contracts, delivery notes, invoices, approvals and payment vouchers.

Without a clear written trail, the contractor may face an uphill task proving not only that the work was done but also the exact entity legally responsible for payment.

Elgon Group under scrutiny

Elgon Group has also been drawn into the dispute after allegations that it played a role in the planning, coordination or execution of the festival-related work.

The company’s role should be established through verifiable records, including its contract terms, scope of work and any authority it had to engage suppliers on behalf of the event.

Elgon Group’s response is that [insert verified response]. If the company disputes liability, it should clarify whether it was an organiser, subcontractor, consultant, sponsor, logistics partner or merely a third party connected to the event.

That distinction could determine whether the contractor’s claim is directed at the right party.

Mercy Wamoto’s response

Mercy Wamoto has similarly been named in the disagreement, with the contractor alleging that she was involved in discussions surrounding the engagement and payment process.

Wamoto’s response is that [insert verified response or “she had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication”].

Her role, if any, must be separated from the broader dispute. Being present in discussions or assisting with coordination does not automatically create legal liability unless there is evidence that she personally contracted the supplier, issued instructions with authority, guaranteed payment or acted as an authorised representative.

A contractor caught in the middle

For the contractor, the dispute is no longer simply about an unpaid invoice. It is about cash flow, workers’ wages, supplier debts and the financial strain caused by delivering services before payment is secured.

The case illustrates a recurring problem in event procurement: suppliers are often asked to mobilise quickly, sometimes on verbal assurances, only to discover later that no single party accepts ownership of the bill.

Where several actors are involved, suppliers should insist on a written contract identifying the client, scope of work, payment schedule, authorised signatories and dispute-resolution process. They should also retain proof of delivery, photographs, messages, signed completion certificates and all correspondence.

Demand for transparency

The KSh3.8 million claim now raises wider questions for the organisers of the Piny Luo festival and any public institutions associated with it.

Who approved the contractor’s work? Was there a formal procurement process? Was a budget allocated? Were funds released? If so, who was responsible for paying the supplier?

Until those questions are answered with documents rather than accusations, the contractor’s bill will remain a symbol of a festival dispute that has moved from celebration to controversy.

All parties named in this story should be given a fair opportunity to provide documentary evidence and respond to the allegations before publication. This article will be updated once written responses, contracts, invoices and payment records are made available.

The suspects, Faith Gathoni Njoroge and Tyson Marango Owuor, both based at KRA’s Upper Hill offices, were arrested following a complaint that they had demanded Kes 3 million from a taxpayer in exchange for influencing the resolution of a capital gains tax assessment amounting to Kes 4.5 million.

Acting on the complaint, the Commission conducted an operation during which the suspects were allegedly caught receiving Kes 900,000, being part payment of the bribe. The money was recovered and the suspects arrested.

The two are currently being processed at the Integrity Centre pending the conclusion of investigations and appropriate action under the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016.

Acting on the complaint, the Commission conducted an operation during which the suspects were allegedly caught receiving Sh900,000, being part of the payment of the bribe.

The money was recovered and the suspects arrested.

The two are currently being processed at the Integrity Centre pending the conclusion of investigations and appropriate action under the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016.

On June 11, EACC arrested an auditor attached to the North Rift Valley Development Water Agency over allegations of soliciting a Sh400,000 bribe from a contractor in exchange for a favourable audit report.

In a statement, the commission said the arrest followed a complaint alleging that the auditor had demanded money from a contractor to influence the outcome of an audit exercise.According to EACC, investigators mounted an operation in Eldoret after receiving the report.

On June 4, EACC recovered Sh65 million in cash during a search operation at the residence of a Nairobi City County official.The Commission said this was part of ongoing investigations into alleged corruption and economic crimes.

The operation also yielded other evidentiary materials that the Commission said would support investigations into allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office, bribery, and possession of unexplained assets.

“The Commission is investigating allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office, bribery, and possession of unexplained assets against him,” the commission stated.

The commission said that the official had allegedly received over Sh170 million through numerous suspicious cash and M-Pesa deposits between the 2019/2020 and 2025/2026 financial years.According to EACC, it is alleged that the said official has accumulated immense assets that are disproportionate to his known legitimate sources of income.

Veteran businesswoman and political figure Mary Wambui has once again found herself at the centre of public scrutiny following fresh allegations linked to a Sh400 million conflict-of-interest matter. The latest developments have reignited debate over transparency, accountability, and the relationship between private business interests and public office in Kenya.

The controversy comes at a time when Wambui has been seeking to move beyond past allegations and public criticism that have followed her career for years. However, the emergence of a new conflict-of-interest finding threatens to reopen old wounds and place her conduct under renewed examination.

Renewed Focus on Public Accountability

According to reports surrounding the matter, investigators raised concerns over potential overlaps between private commercial interests and responsibilities associated with public service. Such findings have intensified calls for stricter enforcement of ethical standards among individuals serving in influential positions.

Governance experts argue that even the appearance of a conflict of interest can undermine public confidence in institutions. They maintain that public officials and individuals connected to government operations must avoid situations where personal financial interests could influence decision-making.

The alleged Sh400 million issue has therefore attracted significant public attention, with anti-corruption advocates urging authorities to ensure that all relevant facts are thoroughly examined.

The Challenge of Moving Beyond Past Controversies

For years, Mary Wambui has remained a prominent figure in both business and politics. Her career has been marked by notable successes but also by controversies that have frequently generated headlines.

Observers note that public figures often struggle to escape past allegations, particularly when new accusations emerge that appear similar in nature. In Wambui’s case, critics argue that the latest developments reinforce longstanding concerns about the intersection of business influence and public power.

Supporters, however, insist that allegations should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing and that due process must be respected. They argue that every individual deserves a fair opportunity to respond to claims before conclusions are drawn.

Growing Demand for Ethical Leadership

The latest controversy arrives amid increasing public demand for ethical leadership and stronger oversight of public resources. Kenyans have become more vocal in calling for transparency from leaders, especially regarding procurement, contracts, and financial dealings involving public funds.

Civil society organisations continue to advocate for tighter safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interest. These include mandatory asset declarations, enhanced disclosure requirements, and stronger enforcement of existing ethics laws.

Analysts say that cases involving prominent figures often serve as a test of the government’s commitment to fighting corruption and promoting accountability.

What Happens Next?

The future of the matter will largely depend on the outcome of ongoing reviews and any actions taken by relevant oversight bodies. If further investigations are pursued, the findings could have significant implications not only for Mary Wambui but also for broader conversations about governance standards in Kenya.

As public attention remains fixed on the case, many Kenyans will be watching closely to see whether the allegations lead to formal action or are ultimately dismissed.

Regardless of the final outcome, the controversy has once again highlighted the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between private interests and public responsibilities—a challenge that continues to shape Kenya’s fight for transparency and good governance.

There is a peculiar art to reading an insurer’s annual report. The headline numbers go up. The CEO speaks of resilience, portfolio discipline, and accelerating digital adoption. The board photograph radiates institutional confidence. And somewhere buried in the risk management disclosures, in the fine print of a sub-section unlikely to attract the attention of financial journalists on deadline, sits a number that should have caused a boardroom crisis months ago.

For Old Mutual Holdings PLC, that number is Sh106.4 million. That is the confirmed quantum of fraud losses absorbed by the company in a single financial year, 2025, drawn directly from its own disclosures.

Of that total, Sh45 million, representing 42 per cent of the entire fraud bill, came not from criminal syndicates in Moldova or hackers in darknet forums. It came from the company’s own employees.

That figure is not a rounding error.

In a company whose profit after tax for the same year was Sh856 million, itself barely a 2 per cent improvement on the prior year’s Sh838 million, a Sh106.4 million fraud hit consumes more than one in every eight shillings the company earned.

Add the hidden costs: the expense of rolling out 37 new fraud controls in a single year across Kenya and Uganda, investigative referrals for 177 cases to law enforcement, legal costs, management attention, remediation projects, and the embedded expense of belatedly automating processes that should have been automated years earlier. The real cost of this fraud problem is multiples of the disclosed figure.

“42 percent of confirmed fraud losses came from Old Mutual’s own staff not from external hackers, not from criminal syndicates, but from people inside the building.”

The mainstream narrative around these results has been relentlessly optimistic. Asset management surged. The Thrive wellness app delivered a fortyfold increase in downloads. A merger of two Kenyan life entities was executed. CEO Arthur Oginga spoke of “resilience” and “disciplined execution”.

None of that is false. What is missing from the public conversation is the equally documented story of an insurer whose internal controls have been structurally compromised for years, whose technology infrastructure carries vulnerabilities that any competent cybersecurity audit would have flagged long ago, and whose core medical insurance business is now in managed retreat, shedding Sh1.3 billion in business that has become too contaminated by fraud and inflated claims to be profitably underwritten.

A Pattern, Not an Incident

To understand the depth of the crisis, you have to look past 2025 in isolation. Old Mutual’s fraud exposure is not a sudden spike triggered by a rogue employee or an isolated external attack. It is the visible peak of a pattern that has been building across multiple reporting cycles.

In 2022, a year the company recorded an outright pre-tax loss of Sh491 million, Old Mutual’s medical insurance book already contributed to an underwriting loss for the insurer, according to the Insurance Regulatory Authority’s own market data.

That same year, IRA figures showed Old Mutual recorded a medical insurance underwriting loss of Sh158.9 million, making it one of the worst performers in the sector on that metric. The company was, at that point, the largest insurer in Kenya by gross written premium, commanding a market-leading Sh14.86 billion in premiums yet simultaneously booking the kind of medical insurance losses that smaller, more cautious operators had already moved to avoid.

The turnaround to a Sh1.4 billion pre-tax profit in 2023 was celebrated internally and externally as evidence of a successful strategic reset. What it obscured was the continuing rot in the claims environment, which no rebranding, no leadership statement, and no AI deployment announcement was yet addressing at its structural root.

By the first half of 2025, the insurance service result the purest measure of whether the core underwriting business is actually making money once claims and costs are set against premiums had worsened to a loss of Sh303 million, from a Sh246 million loss in the same period the prior year

By year end, the full-year insurance service result had swung to a Sh151 million loss from a Sh361 million profit in 2024. That is a Sh512 million deterioration in underwriting profitability in a single year. Fraud is not the only cause, but it is woven through every dimension of that decline: it inflates claims, it depresses loss ratios, and it contaminates the pricing assumptions on which entire books of business are built.

OLD MUTUAL AT A GLANCE: THE FRAUD LEDGER

2025 Confirmed Fraud Losses: Sh106.4 million

Internal (Staff) Fraud: Sh45 million (42%)

External Fraud: Sh61 million (58%)

Fraud Losses Averted by AI/Analytics (2025): Sh193.6 million

Fraud Losses Averted by AI/Analytics (2024): Sh253 million