Kenya Pipeline boss quizzed over still-born project

A parliamentary committee has ordered an inquiry into how over Sh426 million taxpayers money was lost in the Kenya Pipeline Company’s failed project to convert a 40-year-old pipeline from transporting petroleum products to carrying water for human consumption in the Coast region.

Despite the project not materialising, public funds had been spent.

In a heated session, the committee learned that the project was initiated without a proper feasibility study or approvals by the National Environment Management Authority (Nema).

Kenya Pipeline cited a presidential directive as the reason for proceeding with the project. It was revealed that out of the allocated Sh745 million for the project, Sh426 million had already been spent, with Kenya Pipeline hard-pressed to justify how this money was used, notably on unexplained per diems.

During the meeting, Kenya Pipeline Managing Director Joe Sang faced intense questioning from the National Assembly Energy Committee.

The committee sought to understand how the questionable project received approval in March 2022, just weeks before the General Election and toward the end of former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s tenure.

The pipeline, intended to transport water from Mzima Springs — located in Tsavo National Park — was to be operated jointly by Kenya Pipeline and the Coast Water Works Development Agency. The water agency was also responsible for maintaining the pipeline and its installations.

At the time, Kenya Pipeline Managing Director was Macharia Irungu and the board was chaired by Rita Okuthe.

“When we took office, we discovered that using the pipeline to transport water was not safe for human consumption, hence leading to the project’s stoppage,” Sang explained during the questioning.

MPs have learned that the project may have been a case of putting the cart before the horse, resulting in the loss of millions in public funds. Despite KPC’s admission that Sh426 million had been spent on a project that never launched, the committee demanded clarity on how the funds were utilised.

Sang struggled to justify the project, stating: “Several options were considered, but repurposing the 14-inch pipeline without internal lining was seen as an option due to cost consideration. However, to ensure public health and safety, the technical team proposed using an internal lining, which was not adopted.”

He further revealed that the project stemmed from a March 25, 2022, presidential directive, communicated via a letter from then-Head of Public Service Joseph Kinyua to Principal Secretaries in the ministries of Petroleum and Water.

Committee Chair Vincent Musyoka (Mwala), criticised Kenya Pipeline for failing to analyse the directive. “The first response from Kenya Pipeline should have been to review the directive and provide a reasoned opinion, either through your engineers or by consulting other agencies,” he said.

Narok East MP Lemanken Aramat demanded proof of a feasibility study: “Was there a viability test done? Do we have a report showing that this project could deliver water to Mombasa?”

fontomwa@standardmedia.co.ke