Ruto Ajiite Kamkutano: The Trust Problem Behind Kenya’s Biggest Investments

President William Ruto should perhaps have a kamkutano with himself and ask a difficult question: why do major investment announcements associated with his administration so quickly become debates about ownership, private interests and who is really sitting behind the investment?

The question matters because the problem is no longer simply whether a project makes economic sense. Increasingly, the public conversation surrounding major projects also concerns who benefits, how the deal is structured and whether the public interest is genuinely separated from private interests.

The latest example is the proposed $16 billion Dangote refinery in Lamu, which broke ground on September 30, 2026. The 700,000-barrel-per-day facility is expected to serve Kenya and the wider East African market, and regional governments have been offered a combined 30 percent stake. Kenya's current allocation is reported at 10 percent, with the possibility of increasing its participation if other countries do not take up their allocations. 

There is nothing inherently suspicious about Kenya pursuing such an investment. In fact, the economic logic is straightforward: refining crude closer to the market could reduce dependence on imported petroleum products, create industrial activity and potentially generate thousands of jobs. Dangote has also presented the project as part of a broader push for African industrialisation and intra-African trade. 

But that is precisely why transparency matters.

Ruto has publicly said the refinery will be an open and transparent investment, with Kenyans eventually able to buy shares through the Nairobi Securities Exchange. Treasury CS John Mbadi has also rejected claims that Ruto personally owns shares in the refinery, saying the President has no stake in the project. 

Those are important statements. But statements alone cannot settle a question about ownership. The strongest answer is documentation.

If the ownership structure is clean, publish it.

If the shareholders are known, publish them.

If there are agreements between the Kenyan government, Dangote and other investors, make the relevant terms public.

If there are no interests belonging to politically connected individuals, disclose the structure clearly enough for Kenyans to establish that for themselves.

That would do more to kill speculation than a hundred political speeches.

The reason this matters extends beyond Dangote.

Kenya has a long history of controversies surrounding large infrastructure and public-private projects. A 2026 Transparency International assessment identified corruption risks in infrastructure projects including conflicts of interest in procurement, inadequate transparency over budgets, environmental planning weaknesses and insufficient documentation. 

There have also been recent investigations into companies and individuals with political connections participating in major government programmes. For example, reporting based on company records has linked businessman Joshua Kulei to companies involved in the Talanta Sports City and Kenya Defence Forces housing projects. Those findings do not by themselves establish wrongdoing, but they demonstrate why ownership and beneficial-interest disclosures matter whenever politically connected businesspeople become involved in enormous public projects. 

This is where Ruto's political problem becomes more complicated.

A government can genuinely attract useful investment while simultaneously having a trust deficit surrounding the way some deals are presented or structured. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Kenyans can support industrialisation and still demand to know who owns what.

They can welcome Dangote and still ask who the shareholders are.

They can want the refinery built and still demand proper environmental, land and community procedures.

And they can believe an investment will create jobs without automatically believing every claim made by politicians promoting it.

The Lamu refinery itself is already facing a legal dispute involving local residents who have challenged issues surrounding ancestral land, compensation and the project site. A Kenyan court has ordered the status quo to be maintained pending further proceedings. Dangote has nevertheless maintained its commitment to the project. 

That does not mean the refinery is a bad investment. It means large investments have to survive scrutiny as well as construction.

And this is something Ruto should understand.

When a government responds to every question about a major investment by portraying critics as anti-development, it risks missing the actual issue. Most Kenyans do not oppose factories, refineries, roads, ports or foreign capital simply because they are large projects.

People want development.

They want jobs.

They want industries.

They want better infrastructure.

They want Kenya to become a country capable of producing rather than simply importing.

But they also want to know whether the people negotiating these enormous deals are acting exclusively in the public interest.

That distinction is crucial.

The debate should not be "development versus anti-development."

It should be development plus transparency versus development without sufficient transparency.

And Ruto's own recent rhetoric shows that he understands the sensitivity of the issue. He has warned against what he calls "brokers" attempting to frustrate the refinery and has argued that Kenya previously lost investment because of excessive demands on investors. 

That argument deserves to be tested against the facts of each deal rather than accepted or rejected politically.

If people are demanding shares from investors improperly, expose them.

If political actors are trying to interfere with legitimate investment, name the mechanism and provide evidence.

But equally, if government officials or politically connected individuals stand to benefit from a project, that should be disclosed too.

The answer to suspicion is not more suspicion. It is sunlight.

That is ultimately the kamkutano Ruto needs to have with himself.

The question is not whether Kenya should develop. It absolutely needs to.

The question is whether the administration can build enough institutional transparency that a major project can be judged on its economics rather than on speculation about the people standing behind it.

The Dangote refinery may eventually become a major industrial asset for Kenya and East Africa. But its economic success will not automatically solve the broader political question of public trust.

That requires something different: clear ownership structures, transparent contracts, proper public participation, credible conflict-of-interest safeguards and enough disclosure for citizens to independently examine the deal.

If those things are provided, critics will have fewer legitimate grounds for suspicion.

And if they are not provided, government officials should not be surprised when Kenyans continue asking the same question:

Who really benefits?