Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) Managing Director Captain William K. Ruto is facing mounting pressure over allegations surrounding the allocation of prime public land at the Port of Mombasa and the award of an exclusive cargo handling contract linked to South Sudan-bound freight.
The claims, contained in a demand letter by the Genesis for Human Rights Commission (GHRC) and supported by documents reportedly submitted to Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee, accuse KPA of allocating public land at Kipevu to a private company without competitive procurement, public participation or key statutory approvals.
Captain Ruto, who has served as KPA Managing Director since March 2023, has not publicly responded to the allegations.
Rights group issues seven-day ultimatum
According to the GHRC, its Programme Director Caleb Ng’wena wrote to Captain Ruto on June 9, 2026, demanding documents relating to the disputed transaction.
The rights lobby sought certified copies of the lease or allocation agreement for the Kipevu land, records of public participation, the ownership structure and beneficial ownership details of the private company involved, as well as procurement records relating to an exclusive contract to handle 20 per cent of South Sudan-bound cargo passing through the Port of Mombasa.
The organisation says the seven-day ultimatum expired without a response from KPA.
In its letter, GHRC alleged the transaction raises serious governance concerns.
“This entire transaction reeks of high-level influence-peddling, state capture and brazen land grab orchestrated purely due to the CFS owner’s proximity to power,” Ng’wena stated.
The organisation has threatened legal action seeking court orders to halt construction at the site, nullify the alleged tender award and hold Captain Ruto personally liable in his capacity as KPA’s accounting officer.
Multi-million cargo corridor at the centre of dispute
At the heart of the controversy is the construction of a private Container Freight Station (CFS) on KPA land in Kipevu, Mombasa.
According to the allegations, the company behind the project was also awarded an exclusive, single-sourced contract to handle 20 per cent of cargo destined for South Sudan, one of the busiest transit corridors through the Port of Mombasa.
The GHRC claims neither the lease agreement nor procurement documents have been made public and says the identity and beneficial ownership of the company remain undisclosed.
South Sudan remains one of the largest users of the Port of Mombasa, accounting for 12.7 per cent of transit cargo in 2025, according to KPA statistics cited in the complaint. Overall cargo throughput at the port reached a record 45.45 million tonnes last year.
The rights group argues that controlling a fifth of South Sudan-bound cargo represents a highly lucrative commercial opportunity worth hundreds of millions of shillings annually.
Questions over approvals
The petition also alleges construction at the Kipevu site is proceeding without mandatory approvals required under Kenyan law.
According to GHRC, the site lacks the statutory project information board required under the National Construction Authority Act and may not have approvals from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), the National Construction Authority (NCA) or the Mombasa County Government.
The organisation further argues that no evidence has been produced to show public participation was undertaken before the public land was allocated.
If established, such omissions could raise questions over compliance with the Constitution, environmental laws and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
Long-running battle over South Sudan cargo
The South Sudan cargo corridor has previously been the subject of prolonged legal disputes.
In 2023, companies including Autoport Nairobi Freight Terminal and Compact Freight System Limited moved to court over KPA’s handling of South Sudan cargo, accusing the authority of disregarding court orders governing the movement of transit cargo.
The dispute prompted intervention by the Ministry of Transport, which clarified that importers were free to use any Kenya Revenue Authority-approved bonded facility instead of restricting cargo to specific operators.
The latest allegations suggest a new exclusive arrangement has once again placed the lucrative corridor at the centre of controversy.
Wider scrutiny of KPA procurement
The latest claims add to a series of procurement-related questions that have surrounded KPA in recent years.
Captain Ruto has previously appeared before parliamentary committees to respond to audit queries concerning KPA’s financial management, while separate court proceedings have challenged procurement decisions involving major infrastructure projects undertaken by the authority.
Among the matters cited by critics is a High Court petition challenging the award of a multi-billion-shilling contract under the Mombasa Special Economic Zone Development Project, as well as public criticism from some leaders over the cost of road works within the port.
Those matters remain separate from the current allegations regarding the Kipevu land allocation and South Sudan cargo contract.
Calls for investigations
The GHRC is now urging several state agencies, including the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), to investigate the transaction.
The organisation also wants Parliament to compel the release of all procurement records, lease documents and beneficial ownership disclosures relating to the project.
It argues that because KPA land is public property held in trust for Kenyans, any allocation for private commercial use must comply fully with procurement laws, environmental regulations and constitutional requirements.
As pressure mounts, attention is now turning to whether KPA will respond publicly to the allegations or release documents sought by the rights group, even as construction reportedly continues at the disputed Kipevu site.
KPA had not publicly responded to the allegations by the time of publication. The claims remain allegations that have not been tested or determined by a court of law.
