A newly surfaced government letter is now placing Energy Cabinet Secretary Opiyo Wandayi at the center of Kenya’s deepening petroleum supply chain scandal, raising critical questions about prior knowledge, oversight, and accountability at the highest levels of government.
The document, dated March 26, 2026, was authored by Mohamed Liban, the then Principal Secretary for Petroleum, and formally addressed to the Managing Director of the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), Ms. Esther Ngari.
Crucially, the letter explicitly copies CS Wandayi, meaning he was formally notified of the contents and requests contained within the communication—an inclusion that now forms the basis of growing scrutiny.
ALSO READ: President William Ruto Fires Arrested Top Energy Chiefs
At the heart of the letter is a request for a temporary waiver on critical fuel quality requirements, including the Certificate of Conformity (CoC) and other key petroleum standards that are ordinarily mandatory before fuel is allowed into the Kenyan market.
The justification provided in the letter cites geopolitical instability in the Gulf region, particularly disruptions along the Strait of Hormuz, which allegedly forced suppliers under the Government-to-Government (G2G) fuel framework to source products from alternative markets.
According to Liban, these alternative fuel sources did not always meet East African or Kenyan specifications, making it difficult to comply with standard pre-export verification procedures.
He further argued that delays in cargo certification or rejection of such shipments could trigger a national fuel shortage, disrupt supply chains, and ultimately drive up pump prices for Kenyan consumers.
However, the letter goes beyond mere explanation—it actively proposes specific regulatory relaxations that have now become central to the ongoing investigations.
Among the most controversial proposals is that where a Certificate of Conformity was unavailable, inspection could instead be conducted at the port of discharge in Mombasa by Intertek Testing Services, rather than at the port of origin as required under normal procedures.
The letter also recommends waiving penalties of up to 5% of cargo value (or USD 3,500 maximum), which are typically imposed when shipments fail to meet compliance requirements.
Even more significantly, it calls for KEBS to waive certain fuel quality parameters on a case-by-case basis, effectively opening the door for petroleum products that fall below Kenyan standards to enter the market.
This is where the implications become far-reaching.
Investigators probing the petroleum scandal have already alleged that substandard or irregular fuel imports entered the country under suspicious circumstances, often at inflated prices and outside established procurement frameworks.
The existence of this letter suggests that the groundwork for such imports may not have been accidental, but rather facilitated through formal government channels under the justification of “supply security.”
The fact that CS Wandayi was copied in this correspondence raises a critical question: Was this a routine administrative briefing, or did it amount to prior knowledge of actions that later evolved into what authorities are now calling economic sabotage?
Supporters of the CS may argue that being copied on official communication does not necessarily imply approval or direct involvement in decision-making.
However, critics point out that such a high-level request—touching on national fuel standards, consumer safety, and billions of shillings in imports—would ordinarily require policy direction or at least tacit acknowledgment from the Cabinet Secretary.
The timing of the letter is also significant.
It was written just days before a major government crackdown that saw the arrest, resignation, or suspension of top energy sector officials, including Liban himself, Joe Sang, and Daniel Kiptoo.
This sequence of events suggests that while internal requests for regulatory waivers were being made, parallel investigations were already uncovering potential abuse of the same system being proposed.
Further complicating the matter is the broader context of the G2G fuel supply framework, which had been introduced as a safeguard against market volatility and foreign exchange pressure.
The letter effectively acknowledges that even within this structured system, suppliers were sourcing fuel from non-traditional markets, raising concerns about traceability, quality assurance, and compliance oversight.
For regulators like KEBS, the request placed them in a difficult position—balancing the need to maintain fuel supply stability against their mandate to enforce strict quality standards designed to protect consumers and infrastructure.
How the game started pic.twitter.com/af6bm9dpEF
— Cyprian, Is Nyakundi (@C_NyaKundiH) April 4, 2026
Now, with investigations revealing alleged manipulation of fuel stocks, inflated procurement costs, and the importation of substandard products, the letter is being reinterpreted as a potential paper trail of how regulatory safeguards may have been systematically weakened.
The biggest question moving forward is whether this was a case of emergency decision-making under pressure—or a coordinated effort that exploited global disruptions as a cover for irregular dealings.
For CS Wandayi, the political and legal stakes are rising.
If investigators determine that the waivers facilitated illegal imports or compromised fuel quality, scrutiny will inevitably shift to whether his office approved, ignored, or failed to act on the red flags presented in the letter.
As the probe widens, this document is likely to become a central piece of evidence—not just in understanding what happened, but in establishing who knew what, and when.
