The People’s Renaissance Movement (PRM) has called for an independent investigation into the transfer of a 24.76 per cent stake in Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) from state-linked institutions to private investors.
Speaking during a press conference, party leader Caleb Amisi questioned the circumstances surrounding the transaction, demanding transparency over the identity of the investor, the sale price and the financial implications for public institutions.
The concerns follow reports that state-linked institutions sold a combined 24.76 per cent stake in KPC in a transaction valued at approximately KSh42.5 billion.
Nigerian businessman Aliko Dangote subsequently confirmed that his business interests had acquired a stake of about a quarter of the company, which transports petroleum products across Kenya.
Amisi questioned the circumstances under which public institutions acquired KPC shares during the company’s initial public offering before selling a substantial portion of their holdings months later.
He also raised concerns over the transaction price, claiming that the difference between the acquisition price and the amount at which the shares should have been sold represented a potential loss of more than KSh700 million.
The party called for a forensic audit of the transaction, including the share purchase and sale records, brokerage fees and the overall financial impact on the institutions involved.
PRM further demanded parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability, arguing that KPC’s strategic role in the country’s petroleum supply infrastructure makes transparency over its ownership particularly important.
The party also called for measures to protect the interests of pensioners and taxpayers whose institutions held shares in the company.
The transaction has attracted public attention because of the size of the stake transferred and the involvement of state-linked institutions that had invested in KPC during its listing on the Nairobi Securities Exchange.
PRM urged the government not to dismiss the concerns, insisting that the public deserved a clear explanation of how the transaction was conducted.
The party’s allegations regarding the financial loss and the need for an investigation had not been independently established in the information available at the time of publication.
