FACT CHECK | POLITICAL DISINFORMATION | INFRASTRUCTURE
Published by Friends of TUTAM (FOT) | May 12, 2026
Today, as heads of state and business leaders from over 30 African nations gather in Nairobi for the Africa Forward Summit 2026 — a historic occasion co-hosted by Kenya and France — former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has chosen to launch a sensational claim targeting President William Ruto and French President Emmanuel Macron. Gachagua demands that Macron “refund” Ksh 7 billion allegedly paid to French firms in connection with the cancelled Rironi–Mau Summit road contract.
The claim is designed to generate maximum outrage on a day of maximum international visibility. It is factually selective, legally illiterate, and politically dishonest. Most importantly, it obscures a straightforward truth: the Kenyan government acted correctly, transparently, and in the best interests of taxpayers when it cancelled the French road contract and settled its legal obligations.
| This is not a whistleblowing moment. It is a political ambush — timed to embarrass Kenya at the worst possible moment, built on half-truths, and designed to mislead ordinary Kenyans about who actually bears responsibility. |
THE FULL HISTORY: What Gachagua Hopes You Will Not Remember
To understand why Gachagua’s claim collapses under scrutiny, you need to understand the complete history of the Rironi–Mau Summit road project — a history that Gachagua is actively distorting.
2019: The Original French Concession Deal. During a visit to Kenya by President Emmanuel Macron, a 1.6 billion euro concession was signed with a Vinci-led consortium to operate the Nairobi–Mau Summit Highway. The deal was brokered at the state level with French government backing and signed during the tenure of President Uhuru Kenyatta. Importantly, this was a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) — meaning the French consortium was not simply a contractor but a concessionaire who would finance, build, and operate the road, recovering costs through tolls over a 30-year period.
Why the Deal Became Untenable. The contract contained a structural flaw that the incoming Kenya Kwanza administration identified: it placed the burden of traffic risk on the Government of Kenya. In practical terms, if motorists avoided the road or traffic volumes fell short of projections, the government — not the French company — would be financially responsible for the shortfall. Attempts to renegotiate these terms with the consortium and its financiers failed. No acceptable revised terms could be agreed upon.
The Government Made the Right Call. Faced with a legally binding agreement that exposed Kenyan taxpayers to open-ended financial liability for decades, the Ruto administration took the difficult but correct decision to terminate the contract. The Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) issued a formal termination notice after the renegotiation process reached a deadlock.
| KEY FACT | No construction had begun at the time of termination. The French consortium had not laid a single metre of tarmac. The project remained entirely at the feasibility and preparatory phase. |
THE KSH 7 BILLION PAYMENT: Contractual Obligation, Not a Handout
This is the crux of Gachagua’s claim — and where his argument is most dishonest. He frames the payment to the French firms as if it were a theft, a scandal, or a gift to foreign interests. The reality is the exact opposite.
When Kenya signed a legally binding PPP concession agreement with the Vinci consortium, the contract included standard commercial terms for termination. Under those terms, the road was formally transferred to the consortium as the concessionaire during the project period. For Kenya to reclaim control of the road corridor and proceed with alternative arrangements, the government was contractually required to pay compensation to the French firms.
Treasury CS John Mbadi stated this plainly: “We risked being taken to a London-based court over the same. The money was paid for the contractor to hand back over the road because, based on the contract agreement, the road was automatically handed over to the company for the construction period.”
This is not corruption. This is contract law. Any responsible government managing a commercial agreement of this magnitude would do exactly the same. The alternative — refusing to pay and facing international arbitration at a London court — would have cost Kenya far more, created a diplomatic crisis with France, and potentially stalled infrastructure development for years.
| CRITICAL CONTEXT | The compensation was paid to private French companies — Vinci Highways SAS, Vinci Concessions SAS, and Meridian Infrastructure Africa Fund. These are commercial entities, not the French government. Asking President Macron to “refund” money paid to private corporations is the equivalent of asking the French President to personally reimburse a legal fee paid by a Kenyan company to a French law firm. It is legally nonsensical. |
WHAT ABOUT THE FIGURE? The Ksh 6.2B vs Ksh 7.3B Discrepancy
Gachagua has settled on the figure of “Ksh 7 billion” to maximise the political impact of his claim. It is true that there is a reported discrepancy in the figures cited by different government bodies — the PPP Directorate cited Ksh 7.315 billion, while the Controller of Budget Margaret Nyakang’o confirmed approving Ksh 6.2 billion from the Consolidated Fund.
The Auditor-General’s report for the financial year ending June 2025 flagged this discrepancy and raised concerns about the source of funds — specifically that the Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) may have been used for a payment that should have been categorised differently under the securitisation programme.
This is a legitimate financial management question that Parliament and the relevant oversight bodies are rightfully examining. But note what this means: the Auditor-General’s concern is about how and from which account the money was paid by the Kenyan government — not that the payment itself was unjustified, not that the French companies defrauded Kenya, and not that President Ruto personally directed any wrongdoing.
| The oversight concern is about accounting classification — a procedural and administrative matter for Treasury. It is emphatically not evidence of corruption or criminal conduct by the President or the government. |
CLAIM-BY-CLAIM FACT CHECK
| ❌ GACHAGUA’S CLAIM | ✅ THE TRUTH |
| Macron should “refund” Ksh 7B paid to French firms. | Macron and the French government received no money. The payment went to private French corporations as contractual termination compensation. Macron has no legal obligation to refund anything. |
| The government committed wrongdoing by paying the French firms. | The payment was a contractual legal obligation. Refusing to pay would have exposed Kenya to costly international arbitration in London and a diplomatic crisis with France. |
| The Ruto administration “stole” by cancelling the French deal. | The government cancelled a deal that placed open-ended traffic risk on Kenyan taxpayers. This was a responsible, evidence-based decision made in the public interest. |
| The Chinese replacement deal inflated costs by Ksh 50B. | The Chinese contract at Ksh 192.6B is a direct construction contract, not a 30-year PPP concession. The two are structurally different and cannot be compared on face value. |
| Gachagua is exposing corruption as a concerned former official. | Gachagua served as Deputy President when this contract review was underway. He was part of the government that made these decisions. His sudden outrage is timed to coincide with a major international summit. |
THE REAL MOTIVE: A Political Ambush Timed to Shame Kenya
Context matters enormously here. Today — May 12, 2026 — the Africa Forward Summit is in full swing at the KICC and the University of Nairobi. This is a landmark two-day event, the first France-Africa summit ever held in an English-speaking African nation. President Macron has announced €23 billion in investment commitments for the African continent, including €14 billion from French public and private sources. Kenya is co-hosting. The world’s cameras are here.
Gachagua chose today to make his demand. This is not coincidence. It is a calculated political act designed to inject controversy into Kenya’s moment on the global stage, to embarrass President Ruto in front of international guests and investors, and to generate viral outrage among Kenyans who have not had the chance to examine the full facts.
A genuine patriot with genuine concerns about public finance would have raised these issues through Parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, through the Auditor-General’s process — all of which are already examining these questions — or through the courts. Instead, Gachagua chose a press statement on summit day. The target is not accountability. The target is Ruto.
| REMEMBER THIS | Gachagua was Kenya’s Deputy President from September 2022 until October 2024 — the precise period during which the French contract was cancelled, the termination fee negotiations took place, and the Chinese firms were brought in. He sat in the Cabinet. He attended State House meetings. His sudden discovery of wrongdoing, announced on the day Kenya hosts its biggest diplomatic event in years, tells you everything about his motivations. |
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO BETTER
Friends of TUTAM believes in honest accountability, not blind defence. There are legitimate questions around this project that the government should address clearly and proactively:
- The discrepancy between the Ksh 6.2 billion CoB-approved figure and the Ksh 7.315 billion PPP Directorate figure must be reconciled publicly and promptly.
- The Auditor-General’s concern about RMLF fund classification should be addressed by Treasury with full transparency to Parliament.
- Parliament should be given a clear timeline for the commencement and completion of the Rironi–Mau Summit road under the new arrangement.
These are the legitimate accountability questions. They deserve serious answers — not political theatre.
CONCLUSION: Kenya Deserves Better Than This
The Rironi–Mau Summit Road project has had a complicated history — from a PPP deal brokered under Kenyatta, through a difficult but necessary cancellation under Ruto, to a replacement arrangement now underway. There are genuine oversight questions about the financial management of the termination payment. Those questions are being examined by the appropriate institutions.
What there is no evidence of is presidential wrongdoing, deliberate fraud, or a conspiracy to enrich French firms at Kenya’s expense. The government cancelled an unfavourable contract, paid its legal obligations, and redirected the project to a structure more protective of Kenyan taxpayers. That is governance.
Gachagua’s demand that Macron personally refund money paid by Kenya to private French companies is not accountability. It is not whistleblowing. It is a politically timed propaganda salvo aimed at Kenya’s President and at Kenya’s international reputation — delivered on the one day when its damage potential is highest.
Kenyans are smart enough to see it for what it is.
| The Africa Forward Summit is Kenya’s moment. Over 30 African heads of state, billions in investment pledges, and the world’s attention are here in Nairobi because of President Ruto’s diplomatic leadership. Gachagua chose this moment not to serve Kenya — but to sabotage it. |
SHARE THIS FACT CHECK
Help Kenyans access the full truth. Share widely on WhatsApp, X (Twitter), and Facebook.
Friends of TUTAM (FOT) — Delivering Truth, Driving Progress
www.friendsoftutam.or.ke | info@friendsoftutam.or.ke
