JKIA expansion deal: Who is fooling whom?

The Kenyan government has unequivocally denied reports that controversial businessman Wicknell Chivayo’s firm, IMC Construction Kenya, was awarded a contract for the modernisation and expansion of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA). Transport Cabinet Secretary Davis Chirchir stated that IMC Construction Kenya neither participated in the bidding process nor has any association with the multi-billion-shilling project. This denial comes amidst media reports suggesting a consortium involving Chivayo's firm had secured the lucrative deal. The government maintains that the procurement process, conducted through open international competitive bidding in accordance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, is still ongoing, with no contract yet awarded. This development highlights critical issues of transparency, accountability, and adherence to statutory procurement procedures in large-scale public infrastructure projects in Kenya.

Recent reports alleging the award of a multi-billion-shilling contract for the expansion and modernisation of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to a firm linked with controversial Zimbabwean businessman Wicknell Chivayo have been met with a firm denial from the Kenyan government. Transport Cabinet Secretary Davis Chirchir publicly clarified that IMC Construction Kenya, the firm in question, was not a bidder in the procurement process and holds no involvement in the project. This official repudiation directly contradicts earlier media assertions, raising significant questions about the veracity of information surrounding high-value public tenders.

The controversy underscores the persistent challenges in ensuring transparency and accountability within Kenya's public procurement landscape, particularly for mega-projects that attract intense public scrutiny. For legal practitioners, this scenario presents a crucial opportunity to examine the legal framework governing public contracts, the implications of premature announcements or misrepresentations, and the mechanisms available for dispute resolution and enforcement of procurement laws. This article will delve into the statutory underpinnings of public procurement in Kenya, analyse the legal ramifications of such conflicting narratives, and consider the practical implications for entities engaging with government tenders.

Public procurement in Kenya is primarily governed by the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 (PPADA), which came into effect on January 7, 2016. This Act was enacted to give effect to Article 227 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which mandates that public procurement systems be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. The PPADA 2015 repealed the previous Public Procurement and Disposal Act of 2005, establishing a comprehensive framework for procurement planning, processing, contract management, and asset disposal by all state organs and public entities.

Central to this framework is the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), a statutory body tasked with regulating and overseeing public procurement and asset disposal processes. The PPRA monitors compliance, investigates complaints, and advises on policy, playing a crucial role in promoting good governance and accountability. For large-scale infrastructure projects like the JKIA expansion, the PPADA mandates open international competitive bidding, ensuring equal opportunity for qualified local and international firms. The process involves detailed stages, including tender advertisement, bid submission, evaluation, and a mandatory 14-day standstill period before contract signing to allow for any challenges by aggrieved bidders.

The government's denial regarding the JKIA expansion contract highlights several critical aspects of public procurement law in Kenya. Firstly, under the PPADA, a contract for public works is not deemed concluded until a formal award is made and a written agreement is signed by an authorised public officer, following a rigorous evaluation process. Transport CS Chirchir's statement that bidding closed on May 14, 2026, and the procuring entity is still awaiting an evaluation report from the PPRA, confirms that the formal award stage has not yet been reached. This implies that any claims of a contract award prior to this official process are, legally speaking, premature and without basis.

Secondly, the PPADA places a strong emphasis on transparency and fairness. Section 63 of the Act outlines conditions for terminating procurement proceedings, and the entire process is subject to scrutiny to prevent corruption and ensure value for money. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) serves as the primary forum for aggrieved bidders to challenge procurement decisions. Decisions of the PPARB can then be subjected to judicial review by the High Court, though strict timelines apply to these proceedings to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes and avoid stalling critical government projects.

Thirdly, the conflicting narratives – media reports of an award versus government denial – underscore the importance of official communication and adherence to established protocols. While media houses may report on perceived developments, the legal validity of a public contract hinges on strict compliance with the PPADA. The government's assertion that IMC Construction Kenya did not participate as a bidder directly challenges the factual premise of the alleged award. If a firm were to claim a contract in the absence of a formal award and proper procurement process, it would face significant legal hurdles in demonstrating the existence of a binding agreement. The Government Contracts Act also stipulates that contracts made on behalf of the Government must be in writing and signed by an authorised officer.

Finally, the incident serves as a reminder of the potential for reputational damage and public distrust when procurement processes are perceived to be opaque or subject to external influence. The PPRA's role in monitoring and reviewing the system is crucial in upholding public confidence. Any deviation from the prescribed procedures, or even the perception of such deviation, can trigger investigations and legal challenges, potentially delaying vital infrastructure development. The previous cancellation of a deal with Adani Group for the same project due to corruption investigations further highlights the sensitivity of such tenders.

For legal practitioners advising clients on public procurement in Kenya, this episode reinforces the paramount importance of meticulous adherence to the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, and its associated regulations. Firms must conduct thorough due diligence, ensuring their participation aligns strictly with the stipulated bidding processes and that any purported awards are formally communicated and documented by the authorised procuring entity. Relying on unofficial reports or premature announcements carries significant legal and financial risks, as a contract is only legally binding upon formal award and execution in accordance with the law.

Going forward, all stakeholders should closely monitor the official pronouncements from the Ministry of Transport and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority regarding the JKIA expansion project. The integrity of Kenya's public procurement system depends on strict adherence to the principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability. This incident serves as a potent reminder that while public interest in major infrastructure projects is high, the legal process must be respected to ensure legitimate, enforceable contracts and prevent costly disputes. Practitioners should advise clients to maintain robust internal compliance frameworks and be prepared to navigate the formal dispute resolution mechanisms, including the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board and judicial review, should irregularities arise.