By Andrew Kariuki

Mtetezi rights group has raised concerns over a proposed shift in Kenya’s fuel policy that could allow the importation of higher-sulphur fuel, warning that the move poses risks to public health and regulatory integrity.

In a press statement dated May 3, 2026, Mtetezi, the Grassroots Economic Justice Movement, expressed “serious alarm” over reports that the government is considering relaxing fuel quality standards to address potential shortages, noting that the move raises “urgent concerns about public safety, regulatory integrity, and ministerial accountability.”

The group said the proposed policy direction contradicts recent government actions, recalling that between March 20 and 25, 2026, a fuel consignment was rejected after being found “substandard due to high sulphur content.”

That decision led to the dismissal of senior officials across key institutions, including the Ministry of Energy, the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) and the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC).

Mtetezi questioned the apparent reversal, arguing that “barely three weeks later, the same government is now considering allowing fuel of similar substandard characteristics into the Kenyan market,” describing the shift as “not only confusing; it is unacceptable, illegal and demands immediate explanation.”

The organisation further pointed to earlier assurances made to Parliament that fuel supply under the Government-to-Government framework was sufficient and that quality standards remained stable, now asking what has changed to justify the reconsideration of previously rejected fuel.

Among its key concerns, the group is seeking clarity on whether the earlier fuel crisis was genuine or “a manufactured one based on manipulated data,” and whether Parliament and the public may have been misled.

Mtetezi has called on Energy Cabinet Secretary Opiyo Wandayi and Trade Cabinet Secretary Lee Kinyanjui to provide answers within 72 hours, warning that failure to do so could lead to public demonstrations.

The group warned that Kenya risks “a dangerous reversal,” adding that the situation points to “a policy contradiction and grand corruption, with serious consequences for public health, consumer costs and institutional credibility.”