Adani Out, China In: Why Is Kenya's New JKIA Deal Sh137 Billion More Expensive?
When the government abruptly pulled the plug on the controversial JKIA deal with India's Adani Group, many Kenyans breathed a sigh of relief.
The project had become a lightning rod for public anger. Questions swirled around transparency, value for money, and the wisdom of effectively handing over the country's most important airport to a foreign company for decades. Critics described it as a bad deal. Government officials appeared to agree.
The message was simple: Kenya deserved better.
Now, barely two years later, reports have emerged that a Chinese firm has secured a contract worth approximately Sh375 billion to upgrade Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.
Pause for a moment and let that sink in.
The Adani proposal that sparked a national uproar was reportedly valued at around Sh238 billion. The new deal is said to be worth roughly Sh137 billion more.
Naturally, a natural question arises: What exactly changed?
The Price Tag Nobody Is Talking About
The first thing that jumps out is the sheer size of the figure.
Sh375 billion is not pocket change. It is not even ordinary government spending. It is the kind of money that could fund multiple highways, hospitals, dams, or entire county development programmes.
Yet, unlike the Adani proposal, which was dissected daily on television, radio, social media and in Parliament, the reported Chinese deal appears to have entered public discourse with remarkably little scrutiny.
• Where are the heated debates?• Most importantly, where are the documents?
Kenyans cannot be expected to celebrate a deal simply because it comes wrapped in different packaging.
If a transaction involving a strategic national asset was subjected to intense examination when an Indian company was involved, then the same standards must apply when the winning bidder is Chinese.
Anything less would amount to selective outrage.
Is It Really More Expensive?
Of course, there is an important caveat.
A bigger price tag does not automatically mean a worse deal.
The scope of work may be significantly larger.
The new project reportedly includes major airport expansion works, including a new terminal and an additional runway. If that is the case, comparisons with the Adani proposal may not be straightforward.
But that is precisely why transparency matters.
Kenyans deserve to see the numbers.
What exactly is being built?
How much does each component cost?
What assumptions were used to arrive at the final figure?
Who verified those costs?
Without answers to these questions, citizens are left to choose between blind trust and informed scepticism.
History suggests scepticism is the healthier option.
The China Question
There is another elephant in the room.
Kenya's relationship with China has long been complicated.
Chinese financing has delivered roads, railways and infrastructure projects across the country. At the same time, concerns have repeatedly surfaced regarding debt levels, procurement processes, cost overruns and contractual secrecy.
The Standard Gauge Railway remains one of the most debated infrastructure projects in Kenya's history.
Manly Kenyans still do not know the full details of the agreements signed on their behalf.
That experience has left scars.It has also left an obvious question hanging over any major Chinese-funded project: what are the terms?
If this airport upgrade involves Chinese financing, taxpayers have every right to know:
• Who is lending the money?
• At what interest rate?
Over what repayment period?
• What guarantees have been offered?
• What happens if repayments become difficult?
These are not anti-China questions.
They are pro-accountability questions.
Have We Learnt Anything From Adani?
The irony here is difficult to ignore.
The collapse of the Adani proposal was presented as a victory for transparency and public participation.
Citizens demanded answers.
The government listened.
Or so we were told.
Yet the real test of that lesson is not whether one controversial deal was cancelled.
The real test is whether future deals are subjected to the same scrutiny.
A government committed to transparency should have no difficulty publishing procurement documents, financial models, feasibility studies and contractual obligations.
In fact, it should welcome such scrutiny.
Transparency is not a burden.
It is proof that there is nothing to hide.
The Questions That Demand Answers
Before Kenyans are asked to applaud this latest development, several questions deserve clear and public answers.
• Who won the contract?
How was the contractor selected?
• Was there an open and competitive tender process?
• What is the full scope of the project?
• How will it be financed?
•Who carries the financial risk?
• Will Parliament have an opportunity to scrutinise the agreement?
And perhaps most importantly:
• Why should taxpayers believe this deal represents better value than the one that was rejected?
The Bottom Line
Kenya desperately needs a modern airport.
Few would dispute that.
JKIA has struggled for years with congestion, ageing infrastructure and capacity constraints that undermine the country's ambitions of becoming East Africa's premier aviation hub.
The question is not whether expansion is necessary.
The question is whether it is being done in a manner that is transparent, accountable and fair to taxpayers.
When the Adani deal emerged, government officials assured Kenyans that national interests would come first.
Now comes the moment of truth.
If the new agreement is genuinely better, the government should have no fear of opening the books.
Until then, the question remains stubbornly unanswered: If Sh238 billion was too much for Adani, why is Sh375 billion acceptable for everyone else?
Comments
Post a Comment