The Sh9 billion contract for the Chinese contractor who built the Nairobi Expressway to rehabilitate the lower section of the 27km double-decker road needs to be scrutinised further.
The State should explain to Kenyans why they need to pay for the rehabilitation of the old highway—with additional money from taxpayers—after China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) completed works on the Expressway.
The contractors of the Sh88 billion double-decker road built using the public-private partnership (PPP) model, and which would see Kenyans pay for its use, ought to have rehabilitated the lower section of the highway as part of the initial contract.
It makes little sense to issue a fresh contract to rehabilitate a road that was bound to be damaged during construction of the Expressway. This should have been apparent, even at the design stage. The Expressway links Mlolongo, along Mombasa Road, to Waiyaki Way via the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA). The firm just completed the upper deck toll road, which was opened to the public for a trial phase on Saturday before President Kenyatta commissions it.
Considering that a majority of Nairobi residents would not afford to pay the toll charges on the Expressway and are bound to use the lower section, it’s wrong for the ministry to pass the bill to the taxpayer. City motorists expect this road to be in its original standard, at no extra cost to them. The trial phase of the expressway will attract a toll fee paid at the point of exit. Motorists will pay between Sh120 and Sh1,800, depending on the size of the vehicle and the distance covered.
Moja Expressway, a subsidiary of CRBC, which will operate the road, has provided only cash or electronic card as payment methods. The revelation of the Sh9 billion deal has exposed how mega projects are shrouded in secrecy in Kenya.
The Ministry of Transport ought to explain the rationale of the decision and the additional cost to Kenyans. We demand more openness and scrutiny of such contracts to allow the public to make own informed judgments of whether their hard-earned money was being put to good use.
