A 29-page whistleblower complaint to the Public Service Commission alleges KES 814 million in procurement fraud, a web of conflicts of interest, and systemic governance rot at the Nairobi Metropolitan Area Transport Authority — implicating its most senior officers.
When the Nairobi Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (NaMATÀ) was established to bring order to Nairobi’s chaotic transport ecosystem, Kenyans had reason for cautious optimism.
What the whistleblower complaint now before the Public Service Commission describes instead is a textbook case of institutional capture — a publicly funded authority allegedly converted into a private income-generating machine by a small, mutually protective clique at the very top.
The 29-page complaint, seen and reported on by the Nyakundi Report, calls for urgent investigation into procurement irregularities, conflicts of interest, unexplained wealth, qualification fraud, and human resource abuse.
Three senior officials sit at the centre of the allegations: Director General Eng. Francis Gitau, Head of Finance CPA Brian Kiptoo Kipsang, and Head of Procurement Soila Shunet. Together, the three are accused of presiding over — or actively participating in — schemes that the complaint estimates cost taxpayers more than
Sh814M between 2023 and 2026.
The Principal Accused: A Portrait of Alleged Impunity
Each of the three named officials carries a distinct profile in the complaint, but the allegations paint a coherent collective picture: senior officers who appeared rarely for work, used their limited office time primarily to approve financial transactions, accumulated unexplained personal wealth, and allegedly engineered procurement outcomes in favour of connected entities.
Director General Eng. Francis Gitau is accused of chronic absenteeism, with time reportedly spent at a privately-owned entertainment establishment rather than at his desk.
The complaint alleges he owns high-end property that constitutes unexplained wealth relative to his declared income, that he obstructed an internal audit, and that a personal relationship with the Head of Procurement created a serious conflict of interest.
Perhaps most damning procedurally: the complaint states he is above the mandatory retirement age yet is allegedly seeking an unlawful contract extension.
Head of Finance CPA Brian Kiptoo Kipsang is alleged to have been chronically absent from the office, appearing only when financial documents required his signature.
Beyond the absenteeism, the complaint presents documentary evidence that Kipsang is a Director of Brily Logistics Limited — a private firm that received a Sh22.8 million contract from the Nairobi City County Government while Kipsang simultaneously held the keys to NaMATÀ’s financial authorisations.
He is further linked to ICT procurement irregularities, training expenditure fraud, and alleged unexplained property in Muthaiga.
Head of Procurement Soila Shunet is tied to the same ICT procurement irregularities.
The complaint flags that she uses or owns high-end vehicles inconsistent with her declared salary.
There are also questions over whether she met the minimum academic and professional qualifications required for her appointment — a matter with significant legal consequences, as explored below.
An alleged personal relationship with the Director General is said to have further compromised the objectivity of procurement decisions.
The Money Trail: Alleged Losses Sector by Sector
The complaint is not a generalised grievance. It is a structured financial accounting of alleged losses, category by category, with named suppliers and specific contract details.
Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) contracts account for the single largest alleged loss: over KES 400 million. These contracts were allegedly irregularly procured and awarded to companies linked to NaMATÀ insiders.
Red flags cited in the complaint include inflated pricing, unexplained contract variations, and the delivery of substandard or incomplete works.
Office partitioning works represent the most egregious alleged overpricing. NaMATÀ allegedly spent over KES 300 million on partitioning works during FY2023/24 and FY2024/25.
The complaint notes that market comparables put the cost of equivalent work at between KES 20 million and KES 50 million, implying overpricing of between KES 250 million and KES 280 million.
“Similar partitioning works in the market would ordinarily cost between KES 20 million and KES 50 million. NaMATÀ allegedly spent over KES 300 million.”
ICT hardware and software procurement accounts for a further KES 80.5 million in alleged irregularities. Contracts were awarded to Luminus Investment Ltd, Redrock Projects Ltd, and Ms. Redak Project Ltd for hardware and software allegedly not delivered or significantly overpriced.
In some cases, payments were made for freely available software.
Training fraud completes the picture, with KES 10.67 million in questionable expenditure. Multiple workshops and policy development exercises have been flagged. A senior officer allegedly claimed ESAMI course per diems without attending the course.
Policies and manuals supposedly produced using these funds reportedly cannot be traced or do not exist.
The Brily Logistics Conflict: A Document That Speaks
Of all the allegations in the complaint, the conflict-of-interest claim against Brian Kiptoo Kipsang is the most legally acute — because it is backed by a document.
The whistleblower has produced a signed and sealed contract — Tender No. NCC/WDP/T/402/2024-2025 — between the Nairobi City County Government and M/S Brily Logistics Limited, valued at KES 22,819,241.32.
On the contract, Brian Kiptoo Kipsang appears not as a NaMATÀ official but as Director of Brily Logistics Limited. The implication is unambiguous: the person holding the keys to NaMATÀ’s financial transactions simultaneously owned or directed a private logistics company transacting with government bodies.
The complaint argues this is a direct violation of Section 10 of the Conflict of Interest Act, 2025, which carries a penalty of up to KES 4 million and/or 10 years’ imprisonment, with mandatory restitution of twice the unlawful benefit gained. In Kipsang’s case, the restitution estimate is approximately KES 45.6 million.
The qualification fraud allegation carries its own legal sting. Under Section 41(2) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), appointments made without meeting prescribed qualifications may constitute a criminal offence.
More consequentially still, the legal principle of nemo dat quod non habet holds that all approvals and financial authorisations made by an unqualified officer are potentially void ab initio — meaning every procurement decision signed off by an unqualified officer could, in principle, be challenged and unwound.
A Culture of Exclusion and Salary Neglect
The complaint extends beyond financial fraud to describe an institution allegedly corroded from within. Engineers at NaMATÀ reportedly had Continuing Professional Development opportunities blocked. Officers perceived as outside the “inner circle” had requisitions denied.
Junior officers were allegedly favoured over more senior colleagues. Several staff reportedly resigned out of frustration rather than continue in an environment designed to sideline them.
Most damning on the human resources front: NaMATÀ employees allegedly went without salaries for April and May 2025, receiving their pay only two months late — while the complaint alleges that significant procurement payments were flowing freely during the same period.
The implicit question is brutal: the Authority could not pay its workers, but found hundreds of millions for questionable contracts.
The whistleblower’s demands are clear and proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations. They include a comprehensive forensic audit of all NaMATÀ procurement between 2023 and 2026; examination of attendance records and access logs for all three named officials; a full review of all NMT and partitioning contracts; an independent audit of the external auditors who allegedly failed to detect any of these irregularities; and specific scrutiny of Brian Kiptoo Kipsang’s directorship of Brily Logistics alongside his NaMATÀ role.
Consumer and governance advocacy bodies have a clear role here. Where oversight institutions — the PSC, EACC, DCI, and the Auditor-General — have thus far failed to detect KES 814 million in alleged losses at a single mid-sized transport authority, civil society and public interest litigation must step in to compel accountability.
“The names Francis Gitau, Brian Kiptoo Kipsang, and Soila Shunet should, at minimum, prompt immediate suspension pending investigation.
- Anything less would send an unmistakable signal to every corrupt clique in every other public authority: Kenya is still open for the eating.”
COFEK calls on the Public Service Commission to act on this complaint without delay, and on the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to open parallel investigations. NaMATÀ was created to serve Nairobians. It cannot continue to be run for the benefit of a privileged few at their expense.
