Fresh questions have once again emerged over the management of the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) after a case was filed at the High Court seeking the removal of Kenya Railways Corporation Managing Director Phillip Mainga.
The petition, filed by Wahome Mucunu, raises concerns about transparency, accountability and the management of public resources linked to the multibillion-shilling railway project.
The petitioner argues that several constitutional provisions were violated during the planning, procurement and implementation of the SGR.
According to court documents, the case accuses the respondents of failing to provide important information about the project despite repeated public interest in understanding how one of Kenya’s largest infrastructure investments was undertaken.
Among the documents that the petitioner says have not been fully disclosed are procurement records, SGR contracts, loan agreements, expenditure reports, feasibility studies, procurement evaluations and project appraisal documents.
The petitioner argues that Kenyans have a constitutional right to access information concerning the use of public funds and major government projects. He claims that the lack of full disclosure has denied citizens an opportunity to scrutinize decisions made during the implementation of the railway project.
The case further states that there was inadequate public participation on matters relating to the SGR.
According to the petition, concerns raised over procurement processes and project costs were not sufficiently addressed, leaving many questions unanswered years after the railway became operational.
A major part of the petition focuses on the continued stay in office of the Kenya Railways Managing Director.
The petitioner argues that the leadership of the corporation has failed to uphold the standards of integrity, accountability and transparency required under the Constitution.
He claims that this has weakened public confidence in the institution and raised doubts about the management of public resources.
The petition also questions the procurement processes used in relation to the SGR project. It alleges that the procedures lacked the openness, competitiveness and cost-effectiveness required by law.
These concerns have formed the basis of requests for deeper investigations into how contracts were awarded and how project funds were spent.
Among the orders being sought from the court is a declaration that the continued occupation of office by the Kenya Railways Managing Director is unconstitutional. The petitioner also wants relevant authorities directed to begin the process of removing and replacing him.
In addition, the petition seeks the publication of all SGR contracts, loan agreements, procurement records and audit reports to allow greater public scrutiny.
The petitioner is also asking the court to direct the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate governance and procurement concerns surrounding the railway project.
Further requests include a special audit by the Auditor-General and a comprehensive forensic audit covering all procurement and expenditure connected to the SGR.
The petitioner argues that such measures are necessary to establish whether public funds were managed prudently and in accordance with the law.
Pending the hearing and determination of the case, the petitioner is also seeking conservatory orders that would prevent the Kenya Railways Managing Director from making procurement, contractual, financial or policy decisions on behalf of the corporation.
The case now places the management of one of Kenya’s most significant infrastructure projects back under public and legal scrutiny as the court prepares to consider the issues raised in the petition.
