NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s latest fuel price debate has become a contest over more than the cost of petrol and diesel, with Energy Cabinet Secretary Opiyo Wandayi and Democracy for the Citizens Party (DCP) leader Rigathi Gachagua trading accusations ahead of the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority’s (EPRA) monthly review.
Wandayi, speaking during President William Ruto’s campaign tour in West Pokot on Wednesday, 14 October, dismissed Gachagua’s claims that the government intended to raise fuel prices to finance political activities ahead of the 2027 General Election.
The Cabinet secretary insisted that pump prices are determined through a statutory process administered by EPRA, rather than by individual political leaders.
His response followed Gachagua’s allegation that petrol prices would rise by KSh12 per litre and diesel by KSh9 per litre, purportedly to generate money for political bribery. Gachagua had also accused the government of preparing to use international oil market conditions to justify the increases.
The allegations had not been independently substantiated ahead of the regulator’s announcement. Neither the proposed increases nor the alleged political motive should therefore be treated as established facts.
The exchange has nevertheless placed the credibility of Kenya’s fuel pricing system under public scrutiny at a time when households, transport operators and businesses are already sensitive to changes in energy costs.
EPRA scheduled a press briefing for 4pm on Wednesday to announce the maximum retail prices for the 15 October to 14 November cycle. The outcome will provide the first concrete basis for assessing the competing claims.
EPRA’s independence is central—but transparency matters too
Wandayi’s defence rests on an important legal distinction: the government’s energy ministry and the regulator do not have interchangeable roles in determining maximum pump prices.
Under Section 101(y) of the Petroleum Act, 2019, and the Energy (Petroleum Pricing) Regulations, 2022, EPRA calculates and publishes maximum retail prices for petrol, diesel and kerosene. Its formula incorporates the landed cost of imported petroleum, applicable taxes, transport costs and regulated wholesale and retail margins.
This framework is intended to provide a consistent method for determining prices rather than leaving them to arbitrary decisions.
However, explaining that EPRA has the legal mandate to set prices is only part of the answer to public concerns. The regulator must also demonstrate how the formula has been applied in each review, which cost movements have been included and how taxes and other components affect the final price.
A statutory formula can help constrain arbitrary pricing, but its credibility ultimately depends on accurate inputs, consistent application and sufficient disclosure for the public to understand the outcome.
The regulator’s scheduled media briefing could therefore serve a purpose beyond announcing three prices. It offers an opportunity to explain the major changes in import costs, the applicable tax treatment and the contribution of other components to the final pump prices.
If prices rise, the public should be able to see why. If they remain unchanged or fall, the same standard of explanation should apply.
What the numbers reveal about the pressure on fuel prices
Before the October review, Nairobi’s maximum retail prices were KSh214.03 per litre for super petrol, KSh217.86 for diesel and KSh191.38 for kerosene. These rates were unchanged in the September review and applied from 15 September to 14 October 2026.
The government has cited rising international petroleum costs and disruptions in the Middle East as reasons for concern ahead of the new review.
Wandayi said the landed cost of super petrol, measured on a cost, insurance and freight basis at Mombasa, rose from approximately US$1,199 per tonne in August to US$1,385 in September. The corresponding cost for diesel increased from about US$1,200 to US$1,313 per tonne over the same period, according to figures verified by Vivid Voice News.
If confirmed in the underlying import data, those increases would provide a plausible economic explanation for upward pressure on pump prices. Petroleum imports are exposed to international prices, freight and insurance costs, while the exchange rate affects the shilling cost of purchases denominated in foreign currencies.
But rising import costs do not, by themselves, establish the precise amount by which pump prices should change. The final calculation also depends on the relevant pricing period, taxes, margins and any applicable government measures.
That distinction matters because Gachagua’s allegation concerns specific proposed increases of KSh12 for petrol and KSh9 for diesel. Those figures must be tested against EPRA’s actual calculations, not accepted or rejected solely on the strength of statements from political opponents.
Why the fuel dispute has become politically charged
Fuel prices have effects that extend well beyond motorists.
Petrol affects the cost of private transport and many commercial services. Diesel is particularly important for freight, public transport, agricultural machinery and generators. Kerosene remains relevant to some households, especially where access to other energy sources is limited.
An increase can therefore put pressure on the cost of moving food and goods, operating businesses and providing transport services. Whether those costs are passed directly to consumers depends on market conditions, but fuel remains an important input across the economy.
This helps explain why the monthly review attracts political attention. Fuel prices are visible, easily communicated and closely connected to the cost of living. Any increase can become a point of criticism for the government, while a price freeze or reduction can be presented as evidence of relief.
However, political interest in the outcome does not prove political interference in the calculation. Equally, invoking the regulator’s independence does not automatically disprove an allegation that a particular decision was influenced improperly.
The evidence must determine the conclusion.
The most useful questions are therefore specific: Did EPRA calculate the new prices according to the prescribed formula? Do the reported import costs support the resulting adjustments? Were taxes and other components applied correctly? Is there evidence that anyone sought to override or manipulate the process?
Those questions are more consequential than the personal exchange between the two politicians.
Wandayi’s accusations against Gachagua do not settle the issue
Wandayi also accused Gachagua of demanding bribes from petroleum companies during his tenure as Deputy President. That is a serious allegation, and it should be treated as such rather than accepted as fact without supporting evidence.
The accusation does not resolve whether the current fuel pricing process has been followed correctly. Nor does Gachagua’s allegation about the government establish that the proposed increases were intended to finance political activities.
Both sets of claims require evidence appropriate to their seriousness.
The exchange illustrates a broader problem in politically charged economic debates: personal attacks can displace the technical questions that matter most to consumers. Public attention shifts towards who has the authority to speak on fuel prices or whose motives should be questioned, while the underlying price components receive less scrutiny.
For consumers, the relevant issue is not which politician wins the verbal confrontation. It is whether the new prices reflect legitimate costs and whether the regulator can explain its decision convincingly.
Government relief cannot depend on rhetoric alone
The government has also been pursuing measures to cushion households and businesses against international fuel market pressures.
Wandayi said the National Assembly was considering a proposal to extend the reduced eight per cent value-added tax (VAT) on petroleum products for another 90 days from 15 October. At the time of the reports, the extension had not been confirmed as law.
A tax reduction can moderate the final pump price compared with what consumers might otherwise pay, although the extent of the relief depends on the applicable law and the price calculation. It does not eliminate the underlying cost of importing petroleum, and its fiscal implications also need to be considered.
That makes clear communication important. If the government extends the relief, it should explain its expected effect on prices and how the measure will be financed. If it does not, consumers should be told how the expiry of the reduced rate affects the calculation.
The government has also assured the public that petroleum supplies remain adequate despite international disruptions. Supply availability and affordability, however, are separate questions. Fuel can remain available at filling stations while still becoming more expensive for households and businesses to purchase.
Maintaining reliable supply is essential, but it does not remove the need to address the economic consequences of high prices.
The test for EPRA is public confidence
EPRA’s announcement is likely to attract close attention because it will replace competing political claims with an official price decision. Yet the publication of new rates alone may not end the controversy.
The regulator’s credibility depends on the quality of its explanation, particularly when international cost movements are being used to justify changes that affect millions of consumers.
A clear briefing should distinguish the price of imported petroleum from taxes, distribution expenses and regulated margins. It should explain the period used to calculate import costs and identify any changes in the relevant assumptions or policy measures.
Where the figures support a price increase, the regulator should demonstrate the connection between the cost movements and the final rates. Where government relief moderates the increase, that effect should be made clear as well.
This level of transparency would help consumers, businesses and analysts evaluate the outcome on its merits. It would also provide a firmer basis for investigating any credible allegation of improper interference.
The same principle applies to political leaders: allegations about manipulation or corruption should be accompanied by verifiable evidence if they are to be taken beyond political rhetoric.
The real issue is accountability, not the political exchange
The clash between Wandayi and Gachagua has placed fuel pricing at the centre of Kenya’s political debate, but the two sides’ competing claims should not be confused with proof of what will happen at the pump.
The statutory pricing framework gives EPRA a defined role. International market conditions can put genuine pressure on import costs. Government tax measures can influence the final price. And political allegations can warrant scrutiny without being accepted as fact.
These are related issues, but they are not interchangeable.
The immediate question will be answered by the October–November price announcement. The wider question—whether Kenyans can trust the system that determines what they pay—requires consistent transparency, credible regulation and evidence-based public debate beyond a single monthly review.
For motorists and businesses, the ultimate measure is straightforward: not which politician dominates the argument, but whether the price at the pump can be explained, justified and independently scrutinised.
