Havi, Ahmednasir Allege Two Senior Judges Are Behind Sh10 Billion KETRACO Claim by Non-Existent Foreign Firm

A major controversy has erupted around the multibillion-shilling legal battle between the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO) and a dissolved Spanish contractor after senior lawyers Nelson Havi and Ahmednasir Abdullahi alleged that two serving judges are linked to entities pursuing more than Sh10 billion from the state corporation.

The allegations surfaced on X shortly after a Business Daily report raised fresh questions about the ownership and legal standing of the companies seeking to enforce an arbitral award against KETRACO.

According to Havi and Ahmednasir, one of the individuals allegedly linked to the claim is a serving judge of the Supreme Court, while another is a judge of the High Court. Both lawyers claim the matter was brought to the attention of Chief Justice Martha Koome weeks ago during a meeting attended by senior counsel Paul Murgor and whistleblowers.

“It is an open secret in legal circles that this case against KETRACO is owned by judges. The majority shareholder is a Supreme Court judge. Another major shareholder is a High Court judge,” Ahmednasir wrote on X.

Havi also publicly called on the Attorney General and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to investigate the matter.

The allegations have thrust into the spotlight a long-running dispute involving Instalaciones Inabensa S.A., a Spanish company that was awarded contracts worth more than Sh4.5 billion in 2013 to construct the 400kV Lessos-Tororo transmission line and extend the Lessos substation as part of a regional power interconnection project linking Kenya and Uganda.

The relationship between KETRACO and Inabensa later deteriorated, leading to the termination of the contracts in 2016. Arbitration proceedings followed, and in 2019 the Spanish firm was awarded €30.8 million plus interest and costs.

The award was subsequently adopted by the High Court and upheld through a series of appeals, culminating in a Supreme Court decision in October 2022. With accumulated interest and legal costs, the amount now being pursued has grown to more than Sh10 billion.

The dispute has taken a dramatic turn because Inabensa was reportedly declared bankrupt and dissolved in Spain shortly after the Supreme Court upheld the award.

Court filings indicate that the company later transferred its rights under the award to another Spanish entity, C.A. Infraestructuras T & I SLU, while insolvency proceedings were underway.

The Attorney General’s office has reportedly expressed concern that multiple parties could ultimately claim entitlement to the same award. Besides the dissolved Inabensa and the company that allegedly acquired the rights, Spanish insolvency administrators acting on behalf of creditors could also seek recovery.

Such a scenario could expose Kenyan taxpayers to multiple claims arising from a single dispute.

The controversy intensified further after the Court of Appeal recently declined to suspend garnishee orders targeting 17 KETRACO bank accounts held at several commercial banks, including NCBA, Standard Chartered, Co-operative Bank, Citibank and KCB.

KETRACO told the courts that the freezing of the accounts threatens its ability to pay employees, service loans, maintain critical electricity infrastructure and meet regional power-trading obligations.

The appellate court nevertheless ruled that KETRACO had not demonstrated that it had an arguable appeal, allowing enforcement proceedings to continue.

The allegations by Havi and Ahmednasir have renewed scrutiny of integrity within the Judiciary, particularly given past corruption scandals involving senior judicial officers.

Chief Justice Koome has previously acknowledged that corruption allegations undermine public confidence in the institution and has pledged reforms aimed at strengthening accountability.

However, neither the Judiciary nor the Judicial Service Commission had publicly responded to the latest allegations by Tuesday evening.

The claims remain unproven and no evidence has been publicly produced linking any serving judge to the entities involved in the KETRACO dispute.

Nevertheless, the allegations have triggered calls for investigations into the ownership structure of the companies seeking payment, the circumstances surrounding the transfer of rights during insolvency proceedings, and whether any conflicts of interest may have influenced judicial decisions connected to the case.

With more than Sh10 billion at stake and questions mounting over the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries, the KETRACO dispute is rapidly evolving from a commercial arbitration battle into a matter of national concern touching on judicial integrity, public accountability and the protection of taxpayer funds.