Kenya’s public institutions are supposed to serve the people by upholding the law, protecting consumers, and ensuring that those entrusted with public office are held to the same standards as everyone else.
Yet recent events at the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) have raised difficult questions about whether accountability is applied fairly.
The continued stay of Director General David Kemei, despite concerns over his retirement status and growing political ambitions, has become another example of why many Kenyans believe there are different rules for the powerful and for ordinary citizens.
For months, concerns have been raised that Kemei has exceeded the country’s mandatory retirement age while remaining in office.
At the same time, he has openly been associated with campaigns to become the next governor of Uasin Gishu County. Public servants are expected to dedicate their full attention to the responsibilities of the offices they hold.
When the head of a national regulator appears to spend significant time pursuing political interests while still occupying a powerful public position, it naturally raises questions about priorities, fairness, and respect for public resources.
The situation became even more striking after a recent Gazette Notice announced the removal of Charles W. Mahinda as the Non-Executive Chairman of CAK. Mahinda had served for less than six months before President William Ruto appointed former Cabinet Secretary Kiraitu Murungi to replace him. While the board chairman changed, the Director General, who oversees the authority’s daily operations, remained in office. That decision has left many questioning why one official was removed while another, facing much greater public scrutiny, continues to lead the institution.
The Competition Authority exists to protect consumers from unfair business practices, stop monopolies, investigate cartels, and ensure companies compete fairly. These responsibilities directly affect every Kenyan because they influence the prices people pay for food, fuel, medicine, communication services, and many other basic needs. When the regulator fails to act decisively, consumers often end up paying the highest price.
During Kemei’s tenure, critics argue that the authority has not done enough to tackle price-fixing, anti-competitive conduct, and dominant market players.
Complaints about cartels continue to surface while the cost of living remains high. Questions have also been raised about whether major corporate mergers receive the level of scrutiny expected from an independent regulator.
For many Kenyans, the watchdog appears quieter than it should be at a time when consumers need stronger protection than ever before.
One of the biggest transactions attracting public attention is the proposed Sh300 billion sale involving East African Breweries Limited (EABL), where Diageo plans to sell its stake to Japan’s Asahi Group.
The transaction has triggered legal disputes involving distributors such as Bia Tosha, with concerns being raised over transparency, previous distribution disagreements, and the wider impact the deal could have on competition, employment, and investment across East Africa.
Deals of this scale have significant consequences for markets and consumers, making effective oversight by competition authorities essential.
Yet many observers believe the Competition Authority has not communicated strongly enough about its role in safeguarding the public interest.
The concerns surrounding CAK reflect a much bigger issue within government. Kenyans are repeatedly told that public service is built on merit, professionalism, and adherence to the law.
However, many citizens believe that political loyalty, personal connections, and influence often determine who remains in office. When retirement rules appear to apply to some officials but not others, confidence in public institutions continues to decline.
