Nairobi, June 9, 2026 — A sweeping whistleblower dossier submitted to the Public Service Commission has triggered fresh scrutiny of the Nairobi Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (NaMATA), with senior officials accused of presiding over procurement irregularities, conflicts of interest, financial mismanagement and governance failures that allegedly cost taxpayers more than Sh814 million.
The complaint names NaMATA Director General Eng. Francis Gitau, Head of Finance Brian Kiptoo Kipsang and Head of Procurement Soila Shunet as central figures in a series of transactions and administrative decisions that the whistleblower claims warrant investigation by multiple oversight agencies.
According to the report, the alleged losses stem from a combination of questionable ICT procurement contracts, office partitioning projects, non-motorised transport works, training expenditures, cleaning and security contracts, and other administrative transactions carried out between 2023 and 2026.
Among the most serious claims are allegations that ICT hardware and software contracts worth approximately Sh80.5 million were paid for despite goods and services allegedly not being delivered. The complaint further alleges that some software procured by the authority was freely available online, while certain computer equipment was purchased at prices significantly above prevailing market rates.
The whistleblower also raises concerns over office partitioning works reportedly costing more than Sh300 million. According to the complaint, comparable projects would ordinarily cost a fraction of that amount, prompting calls for a forensic audit to determine whether taxpayers were exposed to inflated contracts and procurement abuses.
Another major area of concern involves non-motorised transport projects, which the report estimates may account for more than Sh400 million in potential losses. The complaint alleges irregular procurement procedures, inflated pricing, unexplained contract variations and the use of companies linked to insiders.
The whistleblower further claims that NaMATA’s leadership failed to maintain adequate oversight of public resources. The report alleges that the Director General, Head of Finance and Head of Procurement were frequently absent from the workplace and primarily appeared when approvals or financial documents required signing. The complaint urges investigators to review attendance records and official schedules to establish whether public service regulations were breached.
Questions are also raised about an alleged conflict of interest involving Brily Logistics Limited, a company linked in the complaint to Head of Finance Brian Kiptoo Kipsang. The whistleblower cites a Nairobi City County contract valued at approximately Sh22.8 million and argues that investigators should determine whether procurement and conflict-of-interest laws were violated.
The report additionally challenges the qualifications and recruitment processes surrounding certain senior appointments. It calls for a review of employment records to establish whether all statutory and professional requirements were met at the time the appointments were made.
Beyond procurement, the complaint paints a picture of an institution struggling with internal governance issues. It alleges delayed salaries, stalled career progression, unequal access to professional training opportunities and deteriorating staff welfare. Employees reportedly went without salaries for April and May 2025 even as significant payments were allegedly processed for suppliers and contractors.
The whistleblower is seeking wide-ranging interventions, including lifestyle audits, forensic examination of procurement records, reviews of pension deductions, investigations into alleged conflicts of interest, scrutiny of training expenditures and possible suspension of implicated officials pending investigations.
The complaint has reportedly been forwarded to several oversight institutions, including the Public Service Commission, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Auditor-General and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority.
As of publication, the allegations remain claims contained in a whistleblower report and have not been proven in court. No findings have yet been issued by investigative agencies, and the officials named in the complaint had not publicly responded to the allegations. Oversight bodies are expected to determine whether the claims warrant formal investigations and possible legal action.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
