Gitson accuses NEMA of concealing data on Marsabit power

Kenya's energy infrastructure expansion faces a critical transparency challenge. Gitson, a major infrastructure stakeholder, has publicly accused the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of concealing critical data on the Marsabit power project and related transmission infrastructure—a development that threatens investor confidence and project timelines across East Africa's largest energy corridor.

The allegation centers on NEMA's incomplete environmental disclosure framework. Gitson argues that several interconnected mega-projects, including the Kenya–Ethiopia transmission line and the Loiyangalani–Marsabit transmission corridor, have either reached completion or remain in active development stages. Yet NEMA's public filings appear to exclude these projects from formal environmental impact assessment (EIA) disclosures, creating a regulatory blind spot that undermines both environmental governance and project accountability.

## What does this reveal about Kenya's EIA process?

Kenya's Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) mandates that all major infrastructure projects undergo rigorous environmental impact assessments before approval. The Marsabit power initiative—a critical component of Kenya Vision 2030—should trigger mandatory NEMA review given its scale and cross-border implications. If NEMA has indeed failed to account for the full project scope in its public disclosures, this suggests either systemic documentation failures or deliberate compartmentalization of approvals that fragments regulatory oversight. Such gaps expose Kenya to reputational risk with international lenders, particularly the World Bank and African Development Bank, which increasingly condition financing on transparent environmental governance.

The Kenya–Ethiopia transmission line and Loiyangalani–Marsabit corridor are not minor add-ons; they form the backbone of regional power pooling under the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) framework. These projects carry cumulative environmental footprints—land use changes, biodiversity impacts, and pastoralist community displacement—that demand integrated assessment rather than piecemeal approvals. Gitson's challenge implies that NEMA may have licensed individual segments without evaluating their collective environmental burden.

## Why does regulatory transparency matter for investors?

For foreign and domestic investors, NEMA's credibility is foundational to Kenya's investment climate. Opacity in environmental approvals creates legal jeopardy: projects greenlit without full disclosure risk future court injunctions, community litigation, or international arbitration claims. The Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) and Lamu Port projects offer cautionary examples of how environmental disclosure gaps fueled years of litigation and cost overruns. Investors evaluate governance risk alongside returns; if NEMA's oversight is questioned, capital flows toward competitors like Ethiopia or Tanzania.

The Marsabit power project itself is strategically vital—it aims to unlock renewable energy generation in Kenya's northern region while supporting industrialization hubs. Yet without clear environmental approval baselines, project finance becomes harder to secure. Lenders demand audit trails proving regulatory compliance; concealed or fragmented approvals create documentary holes that complicate due diligence.

NEMA's response will signal whether Kenya's regulatory framework prioritizes developmental speed over environmental accountability—or whether it can deliver both through transparent, integrated governance. The agency faces pressure to either substantiate its approvals or commission comprehensive supplemental assessments.

---

##