CS Joho's Mining Ministry sinks into licence wars, delays and disputes

A fresh legal threat from Archers Post Investments Limited against the Ministry of Mining has once again exposed deep-rooted problems that are paralysing Kenya’s extractive sector.

Currently, investors, communities, and government agencies are increasingly embroiled in complex disputes over mining licences, land ownership, and mineral rights, which threaten to derail the industry’s potential.

The company has issued a seven-day ultimatum to the ministry, demanding that a prospecting licence for manganese in Samburu County be issued immediately.

Failure to comply, they warn, will result in court action over what they term unlawful delays and administrative inaction.

However, the dispute in Samburu is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Mining Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho's whirlwind tours in mineral-rich areas and promises to streamline the industry appear to have fallen short, as allegations of systemic graft continue to plague the sector.

Beyond this specific legal battle lies a much wider crisis affecting Kenya’s mining industry, an industry that both communities and investors describe as increasingly plagued by overlapping licences, opaque approval processes, cadastre conflicts, delayed government decisions, and contested community consent.

Four months ago, a section of leaders in Kwale walked out of a meeting convened by Joho to discuss the Mrima Hill mineral project.

The leaders accused Joho and the ministry of hawking the licence to extract rare earth elements and niobium, valued at an estimated Sh8 trillion, to foreigners without proper consultation with the locals.

In Samburu, a demand letter dated May 14 this year, Archers Post Investments Limited, through their legal representation MK & Co. Advocates, accused the ministry of failing to act on application No. PL/2025/0616.

This inaction comes despite the Mineral Rights Board (MRB) reportedly issuing a favourable recommendation following comprehensive investigations conducted in Samburu County last year.

The firm argues that it has complied fully with the provisions of the Mining Act. Specifically, they point to the publication of notices in the Kenya Gazette and various newspapers in July and August 2025, effectively inviting public objections as required by law.

While the process initially hit a snag when the UASO Community Mining Committee objected to the project, the company maintains that these concerns were amicably resolved.

The objections were formally withdrawn on August 27, 2025. According to the legal documents signed by the company’s advocates, no further objections were lodged after the statutory 21-day period lapsed on September 1, 2025.

Following this, the MRB conducted field investigations in Samburu and convened stakeholder meetings involving the company and local leaders in November 2025.

"The MRB findings were positive and favourable to the application,” the lawyer’s letter stated. 

Under Section 33(2) of the Mining Act, the Cabinet Secretary is legally required to approve or reject a prospecting licence within 90 days after receiving recommendations from the MRB.

However, the company reports that nearly nine months have passed without any communication regarding the licence. Consequently, the firm claims it continues to suffer heavy financial losses linked to community engagement costs, staffing, equipment commitments, and stalled investment plans.

This dispute highlights growing frustration among investors who view Kenya’s mining approval system as unpredictable, bureaucratic, and vulnerable to political interference.

Yet, communities in mineral-rich areas tell a different, equally troubling story. Across counties such as Kitui, Taita Taveta, and Samburu, residents accuse politically connected investors and state agencies of using the same licensing system to lock locals out of valuable resources sitting on ancestral land.

In Kitui County, members of the Mithikwani Self-Help Group say they have spent more than eight years pursuing mining rights for copper deposits discovered on community land.

The group claims it followed legal procedures through the Mining Cadastre Portal and secured environmental approvals from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).

However, their efforts have been thwarted, as sections of the same land later attracted competing claims associated with other firms, including interests linked to Chinese-backed entities and multinational mining companies – Zhen Hua and Shan Zhang.

The bureaucratic hurdles faced by Mithikwani are detailed in correspondence with the government. On December 14, 2023, the group wrote to the Cabinet Secretary of Mining regarding a technical impasse.

“This is a follow-up to our letter dated November 26, 2023, regarding the revoked licenses of Zhen Hua and Shan Zhang. "Please note that the areas of interest for us are free on the public portal, but our application cannot proceed since the mentioned revoked licences show up and the cadastre shows overlap,” the letter reads.

Despite these efforts, the situation deteriorated. On March 19 this year, the State Department for Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs wrote to Mithikwani informing the group that their mining permit had been revoked by the MRB.

The reasons cited were a failure to submit documents affirming a partnership with the National Mining Corporation and a failure to submit coordinates matching the contested area.

Despite the financing arrangement with investors and environmental approvals, the project remains stalled.

“We have spent years moving from one office to another seeking justice,” said a representative of the self-help group.

“Every time we think the matter is resolved, another challenge appears.”

The Mithikwani dispute reflects a broader national problem surrounding Kenya’s Mining Cadastre System, where communities and investors increasingly complain about “cadastre locking”—situations where large tracts of land remain frozen under inactive or disputed licence applications for years.

In Taita Taveta County, residents of Oza Ranch express similar frustrations that have persisted since 2016. That year, Pacific Industrial Company sought community consent to prospect for minerals on the ranch land.

Residents say they approved the request in good faith, believing exploration could create jobs and income. However, locals claim the company initially promised jobs, infrastructure, and economic growth, but later scaled down operations, leaving the land tied up in licensing disputes and administrative restrictions.

Community members now argue that the area has remained economically paralysed for nearly a decade because the land cannot be productively used while mining claims remain unresolved.

“That land has remained idle for years,” said ranch member John Mwasaru. “We trusted the process and got paralysed.”

Residents further claim that Oza Ranch lost nearly 30,000 acres during the adjudication process in 2009, fuelling suspicions about historical land irregularities linked to mineral interests.

In neighbouring Kishushe Ranch, tensions over iron ore deposits have escalated amid competing claims involving major industrial players and disputes over whether valid community consent was obtained.

While Devki Steel Mills insists it secured consent in accordance with the Mining Act, sections of the current ranch leadership dispute the legitimacy of the approval process, claiming the meetings were poorly attended and unrepresentative.

These disputes have placed Kenya’s mining governance under scrutiny, particularly the implementation of the Community Land Act and the Mining Act.

Analysts warn that without streamlined licensing processes, resolved cadastre conflicts, and strengthened community participation, the scramble for critical minerals like manganese, copper, and iron ore could deepen land conflicts.

For now, the Samburu manganese dispute stands as the latest symbol of a sector struggling to balance investor confidence, state regulation, and community rights.