- Edwin Sifuna has invoked Article 35 while demanding access to the Dangote refinery agreement.
- President William Ruto has told lawmakers to follow parliamentary procedures when seeking government agreements.
- Ruto has accused those demanding the document of seeking to frustrate or pressure Aliko Dangote.
- Sifuna says access to information affecting the country is a constitutional matter.
- The proposed Sh2.2 trillion refinery is being developed in Lamu and has attracted wider debate over its terms and impact.
Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has responded to President William Ruto’s criticism of his push to have the agreement between the government and Dangote Group made available. Sifuna turned to Article 35 of the Constitution in defending his demand. He argued that access to information held by the State is a right provided for in the country’s supreme law.
In a statement issued on Friday, October 2, Sifuna quoted Article 35(1), which gives citizens the right to access information held by the State. He also cited Article 35(3), which requires the State to publish and publicise important information affecting the nation. Sifuna said the provisions mean disclosure should not depend solely on the preference of an individual office holder.
“Disclosure of information is a Constitutional imperative, not something left to the whims of one person.”
The senator’s comments followed a public exchange with Ruto over the proposed Lamu refinery. Sifuna has previously questioned why legislators had not been shown the agreement or briefed on the commitments Kenya has made in connection with the project.
Ruto Tells Sifuna to Follow Parliamentary Procedure
Ruto responded to the issue during his tour of the Coast on Thursday. The President said lawmakers seeking access to government agreements should use the procedures available through Parliament. He maintained that there are established channels through which such documents can be requested.
Ruto also questioned the motives of those seeking the Dangote agreement. He accused Sifuna of acting on behalf of a sponsor and alleged that the demand was intended to create an avenue for pressure or extortion against Dangote. Those allegations have been made by the President and have not been established as fact.
The President has also linked his argument to the difficulties Dangote previously encountered when seeking to establish a cement manufacturing operation in Kenya. Ruto said he would not allow similar circumstances to interfere with the planned refinery.
Sifuna’s position centres on whether details of a major government investment agreement should be accessible for public and parliamentary scrutiny. He has argued that major development projects should operate within constitutional requirements and that Parliament should understand the commitments made by the State.
The proposed refinery is a major investment involving Dangote Group and is expected to have a processing capacity of 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Reuters reported that the project, valued at about $16 billion, is intended to supply fuel to Kenya and other East African markets.
The project has also attracted attention beyond the political dispute. Local landowners and conservationists have raised legal and environmental concerns, while a Kenyan court has ordered the parties involved in a land dispute to maintain the status quo pending further proceedings. Dangote has nevertheless maintained its commitment to the project.
The disagreement between Sifuna and Ruto comes shortly after the official groundbreaking of the refinery in Lamu. The project is expected to become one of Kenya’s largest foreign investment ventures if completed as planned. Its proposed scale has also made questions about government commitments and the agreement with Dangote a matter of wider public interest.
For now, the two sides remain focused on different aspects of the issue. Sifuna is emphasising constitutional access to information and parliamentary scrutiny, while Ruto is pointing to established parliamentary procedures and defending the investment from what he describes as attempts to interfere with it.
