Connect with us

News & Analysis

Accountability and Transparency in Natural Resources Benefit Sharing: Avoiding Resource Curse



By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021, ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021*

The Natural Resources (Benefit Sharing) Bill, 2018 seeks to establish a system of benefit sharing in resource exploitation between resource exploiters, the national government, county governments and local communities; and for connected purposes. The proposed legislation essentially seeks to provide a legislative framework for the establishment and enforcement of a system of benefit sharing in natural resource exploitation between natural resource exploiters, the national government, county governments and local communities and designates the Commission for Revenue Allocation to oversee the same.

Notably, the legislation shall apply to the following natural resources— sunlight; water resources; forests, biodiversity and genetic resources; wildlife resources; industrial fishing; and wind. The legislation, if enacted, will also amend the Mining Act 2016 by amending section 83 thereof in order to review the royalties payable. While the pending legislation will have a wide application and touching on the various types of natural resources, it is worth pointing out that the suggested amendment on the mining Act 2016 will have a huge bearing on the proceeds of mining activities in the country, if passed. The same seeks to ensure that all the interested stakeholders will have a share of the accruing benefits. The Bill has been pending for over five years due to the contentious issue of benefit sharing between national and county governments, amongst other issues.

The Benefit Sharing Bill addresses some important aspects encapsulated in the Africa Mining Vision 2009. This includes the fact that state’s ability to optimise the leasing (licensing) of its natural resource assets is concentrated at the outset (conclusion of the exploitation contract) as it is difficult to fundamentally renegotiate contracts at a later stage without sending negative signals to investors on the certainty of contracts, with resulting increased negative investment risk perceptions. The Mining Vision thus recommends identifying all the critical resource linkages at the outset (in the resource exploitation contract/lease/license), even if the local economy is not yet in a position to take advantage of such opportunities. These are some of the issues that the country’s legislative and institutional framework on extractives is trying to capture through enactment of laws and regulations. However, despite such efforts, implementation of these laws and regulations is doubtful. For instance, while there are regulations seeking to empower the local people on the extractives by equipping them with skills and expertise for technology transfer, there have been damning reports that the government agencies responsible for overseeing this are not carrying out their mandate.

Kenya’s Petroleum Ministry is on the spot for failing to utilize millions of shillings set aside for training Kenyans on petroleum operations despite the country facing a severe skills shortage. Empirical studies by other scholars have concluded that good institutional governance – specifically, a strong public voice with accountability, strong political stability, good regulations, and powerful anticorruption policies tend to conduce a positive relationship between natural resource richness and economic development. This is even clearer in the case of Nigeria where it has been reported that, despite the enactment of various laws, the culture of impunity and corruption has continued to occupy the country’s oil industry and poverty reduction remains elusive. However, this does not mean that Nigeria is not an implementing country of EITI. In 2019, Nigeria was rated as having made satisfactory progress overall with implementing the EITI Standard. Notably, the EITI Board points out that even if a country is found making satisfactory or meaningful progress, it does not indicate whether there is corruption in the country or not. It simply means that the country has put into practice significant aspects of all EITI Requirements and thus has sufficient mechanisms of public disclosure of natural resources. In other words, EITI membership and implementation alone is not enough.

In essence, the issues affecting the extractives sector in Kenya are not limited to those related to modes of benefit sharing. There has been a general lack of openness, transparency and accountability as far as the mining activities are concerned. Such situations may have informed the provisions in the Petroleum Act 2019 which provides under section 49 (5) that any contract is a public document and the Government shall have the right to publish and keep it publicly available. Despite this forward looking and commendable provision on accountability and transparency, we are yet to see the publication of such contracts touching on oil and gas agreements in the country. It is estimated that so far, out of the 44 Production Sharing Contracts signed by the government of Kenya, only 10 have been publicised.

In addition, as far as accessibility of information is concerned, it has been observed that the government of Kenya maintains an open data portal and has to some extent availed information on it on some of the on-going projects. However, key information regarding fiscal terms, negotiations and payments is missing on the sites. While there are many legal and regulatory framework covering contracts, exploration and production, it has rightly been pointed out that the legal framework on revenue collection, revenue allocation and social and economic spending is skeletal at best or is completely non-existent. In addition, the inclusion and involvement of civil societies, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders in the transparency and accountability framework is also missing as part of independent oversight across the value chain.

Transparency through public disclosure of the Production Sharing Agreements and other contracts that the government has signed with mining, oil and gas companies builds citizen confidence in the institutions overseeing the governance of the sector and assists in managing expectations. In addition, mining, oil and gas resources are owned by the citizens and are merely managed in trust by the government. Citizens, therefore, have a right to information regarding how their resources are managed. Transparency initiatives in the extractive industries have also made it possible for governments and citizens to engage in the governance of the sector where some governments such as Liberia, Sao Tome, Nigeria, Mongolia, and Ghana have used the EITI to either engage citizens in policy dialogue about resource utilization or governance issues of the extractive industries.

*This article is an extract from the Article: Securing Our Destiny through Effective Management of the Environment, (2020) Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development Volume 4(3), p. 1.  by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards), ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and ADR Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 (CIArb Kenya). Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert in Kenya. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized among the top 5 leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts in Kenya by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.


African Union, Africa Mining Vision 2009, p.17. Available at documents/ 30995-docafrica_mining_vision_english_1.pdf [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

EITI, “The Board agreed that Nigeria has made satisfactory progress overall with implementing the EITI Standard,” 27.02.2019; Reference: 2019-20/BP-42. Available at [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

EITI, “How We Work,” [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Jamah, A., “Stakeholders blame ‘secrecy clause’ to graft in Kenya mining sector,” Standard Digital, 19th Oct 2013. Available at secrecy-clause-to-graft-in-kenya-mining-sector [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Kidunduhu, N., Transparency keeps resource curse at bay, Business Daily, Wednesday, August 7, 2019. Available at [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Makore, G., “Kenya’s New Government and Imperatives for Extractives Governance Reform,” Oxfam, Wednesday, Feb 14, 2018. Available at [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Odote, C., “Release information on all extractives,” Business Daily, Sunday, June 30, 2019. Available at 56-5177330-vwfkao/index.html [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Poncian, J., & Kigodi, H. M., “Transparency initiatives and Tanzania’s extractive industry governance,” Development Studies Research 5, no. 1 (2018): 106-121.

The Natural Resources (Benefit Sharing) Bill, 2018, Kenya Gazette Supplement No.130 (Senate Bills No.31).

Tubei, G., “Kenya’s Petroleum Ministry is on the spot for failing to utilize millions meant for training Kenyans on Petroleum operations despite massive skills shortage,” Business Insider, July 16, 2019. Available at [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Wahome, M., “Kenya denies IMF access to secret mining agreements,” Business Daily, Sunday, July 21, 2013. Available at [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

Zeynalov, A., “Do Sufficient Institutions Alter the Relationship between Natural Resources and Economic Growth?” MPRA Paper 46850 (2013), at p. 11. Available at abstract_id=2413867 [Accessed on 16/1/2020].

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal




Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants  further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands.  He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Court of Appeal Upholds Eviction of Radcliffes from Karen Land




Adrian Radcliffe, the Expatriate Squatter, Evicted from Karen Property by Innocent Purchaser for Value

The Court of Appeal has stayed the decision of the Environment and Land Court purporting to reinstate Adrian Radcliffe into possession of the 5.7 Acre Karen Land by Kena Properties Ltd after eviction by the lawful owners in February 2022. Adrian Radcliffe who was evicted by Kena Properties Ltd, the innocent purchaser of the Land for value.

Before his eviction, Mr. Radcliffe had been living on the land as a squatter expatriate for 33 years without paying any rent. Since he moved into the property as a tenant, he only paid deposit for the land in August 1989 despite corresponding severally with the owner of the land. His attempt to acquire the land by adverse possession claim filed in 2005 was dismissed by Court in 2011 on the basis that he has engaged with the owner of the land July 1997 and agreed to buy the land which he failed to do. The High Court [Justice Kalpana Rawal as she then was] concluded that:

“His [Mr. Adrian Radcliffe] averments that he did not have any idea of the whereabouts of the Defendant and that he could possibly be not alive, were not only very sad but mala fide in view of the correspondence on record addressed by him to the Defendant’s wife. I would thus find that the averments made by him to the contrary are untrue looking to the facts of this case.”

On 10th March 2022, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe and Family purported to obtain court orders for reinstatement into the land. However, the Court of Appeal issued an interim stay of execution of the said orders. The Court of Appeal has now granted the application of Kena Properties Ltd and stayed the execution of the Environment and Land Court Order pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.

The Court also stayed the proceedings at the Environment and Land Court on the matter during the pendency of the Appeal. In effect, the eviction orders issued by the Chief Magistrate Court for eviction of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe in favour of Kena Properties as the purchaser of the property for value were upheld and the company now enjoys unfettered ownership and possession of the suit property until the conclusion of the Appeal.

The Court of Appeal in granting the orders sought by Kena Properties Ltd concurred with Kena Properties Ltd that as the property owner it had an arguable appeal with a high probability of success which would be rendered nugatory if Adrian Radcliffe a trespasser was to resume his unlawful possession of the suit property, erect structures thereon, recklessly use or abuse the said suit property as he deems fit. In any case, that is bound to fundamentally alter the state of the suit property and render it unusable by Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner.

At the same time, the Appellate Court rubbished the argument of Adrian Radcliffe in opposition to the application for stay that he has been in occupation of the suit property for more than 30 years and that he and his family were unlawfully evicted from the suit property on 4th February, 2022. The Court also rejected Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties Ltd has no valid title to the suit property and held that as the purchaser, the company was entitled to enjoy ownership and possession of their property during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court dismissed claims of Mr. Adrian Radcliffe that Kena Properties Ltd as the property owner acquired title to the suit property illegally and unprocedurally finding to the contrary. Further, it rejected Adrian Radcliffe’s claim that Kena Properties as the purchaser cannot evict a legal occupier of a property putting paid to the claim that he was a legal occupier at the time of eviction.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Adrian Radcliffe cannot claim to be the legal occupier of the property having attempted to acquire it by adverse possession before the High Court thwarted his fraudulent scheme on 28th February 2011. Mr. Radcliffe did not appeal the 2011 High Court decision meaning it is still the law that he is not the owner of the land nor the legal occupier of the land having attempted to adversely acquire against the interests of the lawful owner who sold it to Kena Properties.

Mr. Adrian Radcliffe is a well-to-do Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH) UNICEF consultant and former UN employee (who has been earning hefty House Allowance). Many have wondered why he has been defaulting in paying rent for 33 years on the prime plot of land in Karen while living large and taking his kids to most expensive schools in Kenya. No question, a local Kenyan could never have gotten away with such selfish impunity.

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Review: Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1




The Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, Volume 9, Issue No. 1, which is edited by and published by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD is out and stays true to the reputation of the journal in providing a platform for scholarly debate on thematic areas in the fields of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development. The current issue published in September 2022 covers diverse topics including Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in Africa; National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya; Protection of Cultural Heritage During War; The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya; Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya; Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation; Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World; Status of Participation of Women in Mediation; Business of Climate Change and Critical Analysis of World Trade Organization’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment.

Dr. Wilfred A. Mutubwa and Eunice Njeri Ng’ang’a in “Resolving Oil and Gas Disputes in an Integrating Africa: An Appraisal of the Role of Regional Arbitration Centres” explore the nature of disputes in the realm of oil and gas in Africa taking a look into the recent continental and sub-regional developments in a bid to establish regional integration. Additionally, it tests the limits of intra-African trade and dispute resolution and the imperatives for the African regional courts and arbitration centres. In “National Environment Tribunal, Sustainable Development and Access to Justice in Kenya,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua discusses the role played by the National Environment Tribunal (NET) in promoting access to justice and enhancing the principles of sustainable development in Kenya. The paper also highlights challenges facing the tribunal and proposes recommendations towards enhancing the effectiveness of the tribunal.

Dr. Kenneth Wyne Mutuma in “Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of War: A Case for History,” argues that cultural heritage is at the heart of human existence and its preservation even in times of war is sacrosanct. It concludes that it is thus critical for states to take positive and tangible steps to ensure environmental conservation and protection during war within the ambit of the existing international legal framework. In “The Role of Water in the attainment of Sustainable Development in Kenya,” Jack Shivugu critically evaluates the role of water in the attainment of sustainable development in Kenya and argues water plays a critical role in the attainment of the sustainable development goals both in Kenya and at the global stage. The paper interrogates some of the water and Sustainable Development concerns in Kenya including water pollution, water scarcity and climate change and suggests practical ways to enhance the role of water in the Sustainable Development agenda.

Dr. Paul Ogendi in “Collective Property Rights in Human Biological Materials in Kenya,” reflects on property rights in relation to human biological materials obtained from research participants participating in genomic research. He argues that property rights are crucial in genomic research because they can help avoid exploitation or abuse of such precious material by researchers. In “Nurturing our Wetlands for Biodiversity Conservation,” Dr. Kariuki Muigua notes that Wetlands have a vital role in not just delivering ecological services to meet human needs, but also in biodiversity conservation. Wetlands are vital habitat sites for many species and a source of water, both of which contribute to biodiversity protection. The paper examines the role of wetlands in biodiversity conservation and how these wetland resources might be managed to improve biodiversity conservation.

Oseko Louis D. Obure in “Investor-State Dispute Resolution in a Fast-Paced World,” preponderance of disputes between States or States and Investors created need for a robust, effective, and efficient mechanisms not only for the resolution of these disputes but also their prevention. He notes that developing states lead in being parties to Investor-State Disputes (ISD) particularly as respondents. He proceeds to conceptualize and problematize investor-state disputes resolution in a fast-paced world. Lilian N.S. Kong’ani and Dr. Kariuki Muigua in “Status of Participation of Women in Mediation: A case Study of Development Project Conflict in Olkaria IV, Kenya” review the status of participation of women in mediation to resolve conflicts between KenGen and the community. The paper demonstrates a need for further democratization of the mediation processes to cater for more participation of women to enhance the mediation results and offer more sustainable resolutions.

Felix Otieno Odhiambo and Melinda Lorenda Mueni in “The Business of Climate Change: An Analysis of Carbon Trading in Kenya analyses the business of carbon trading in the context of Kenya’s legal framework. The article examines the legal framework that underpins climate change into the Kenyan legal system and provides an exposition of the concept of carbon trading and its various forms. Michael Okello, in “Critical Analysis of World Trade Organisation’s Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Treatment: Prospects, Challenges and Emerging Trends in the 21st Century,” highlights the rationale behind MFN treatment and also restates the vision of multilateral trade to achieve equitable and special interventions with respect to trade in goods, services and trade related intellectual property rights in the affected states.

Continue Reading