‘There was a lot of corruption involved’ – Muturi criticises G-to-G govt fuel deal
By Ndiritu Wanjiru, April 13, 2026Former Attorney General and speaker of the National Assembly Justin Muturi has made serious claims about the government-to-government (G-G) fuel import deal.
He says that the deal wasn’t done right and that some of the promises made to the Kenyans weren’t kept.
In an exclusive interview with Kameme TV on Monday, April 13, 2026, he said the deal was designed in a manner that did not favour Kenyan companies.
“This incident, to me, raised questions about the G-G agreement. The agreement was to reduce the pump prices to between Ksh100 and Ksh110. At first glance, the G-G agreement appeared to be advantageous, yet the pump prices remained unchanged.
“There was a lot of corruption involved in the deal. The only benefit was a six-month fuel grace period to pay for the fuel from Saudi Arabian companies. There was nothing like a G-G partnership; it was all a lie,” Muturi stated.
G-G had no change in pump prices
The agreement was publicly sold as a stabilising mechanism for fuel prices in Kenya, and it was estimated that pump prices would be reduced to between Ksh 100 and Ksh 110 per litre, according to Muturi.
But he states that the agreement did not come to fruition, and people still experienced high and volatile fuel prices even with the arrangement present.
Muturi also claimed that, rather than providing relief as promised, the arrangement was only beneficial to Kenya in the sense that the foreign suppliers based in Saudi Arabia allowed time for payment terms, such as a six-month grace period to pay the fuel suppliers.
He said that this arrangement was aimed at what he called a failure to establish an actual government-to-government partnership and instead indicated a commercial arrangement that was being misrepresented to the people.
Muturi stated that the difference between what was promised and what the fuel import deal actually delivered shows possible mismanagement and corruption and that the government-to-government agreement did not provide the expected transparency and benefits for consumers.