A foreign investor and entrepreneur has come forward with explosive allegations against VeGrid Energy Chief Executive Officer Thomas Mboya Ogutu, claiming he was subjected to threats, harassment, xenophobic abuse, intimidation, and institutional cover-ups after a business relationship deteriorated over what he describes as unpaid work and compensation disputes.
What began as a business relationship between artificial intelligence inventor and entrepreneur Hannes Bend and VeGrid Energy has evolved into a bitter dispute involving allegations of threats, xenophobic harassment, intimidation, police inaction, and institutional protection.
Bend, the founder of Breathing AI and creator of multiple patented AI technologies, claims he became the target of an escalating campaign of threats after seeking compensation for work connected to VeGrid Energy, a Kenyan solar company led by businessman Thomas Mboya Ogutu.
According to Bend, the dispute has left him fearing for his safety and questioning whether powerful individuals are receiving protection from institutions that should instead be investigating complaints against them.
Screenshots shared publicly by Bend appear to show a series of WhatsApp messages sent by Ogutu containing threats, warnings, insults, and references to Bend's foreign nationality. The messages have since become central to a wider controversy involving Enaki Management, Hass Consult, DCI officers, and historical questions surrounding Ogutu's past public-sector career.
The complainant, who has requested public attention on the matter due to fears for his safety, says the conflict began after he performed work connected to VeGrid Energy, a renewable energy company associated with Ogutu.
According to the complainant, what started as a commercial disagreement quickly escalated into a pattern of threats and intimidation.
The complainant alleges that instead of addressing the dispute through professional channels, Ogutu began sending a series of hostile messages containing threats, insults, warnings, and xenophobic remarks.
Screenshots shared by the complainant show messages allegedly sent by Ogutu containing statements such as:
"You need help. Tomorrow I will take drastic action against you."
"Do you know me?"
"You will be out of this country on Wednesday."
"I will not ask you again."
"This is the LAST WARNING."
"Go back to your country."
"This is Kenya, I am Kenyan."
"This is not Norway or Germany you illegal alien."
"You are stupid and sick."
"I will personally deal with you."
The complainant says he repeatedly informed Ogutu that he felt threatened by the messages and requested that the communication stop.
Instead, he claims the messages intensified.
In one exchange, after informing Ogutu that he felt threatened, the complainant alleges he received additional messages warning him that he had limited time remaining before unspecified action would be taken against him.
The complainant further alleges that the messages contained xenophobic undertones targeting him because of his foreign nationality and residency status in Kenya.
According to the complainant, the dispute left him fearing for his safety and the safety of his family.
The allegations extend beyond the messages themselves.
The complainant claims that because Ogutu is a licensed firearm holder, he became increasingly concerned about his personal security and sought intervention from management at Enaki Town and HassConsult Management, where both parties were reportedly residents.
According to the complainant, he informed management about the threats and requested measures to ensure his safety.
He alleges that management initially acknowledged him as the victim and indicated that restrictions would be imposed to prevent direct interactions between him and Ogutu.
The complainant further claims that he was assured Ogutu would not be permitted to carry a firearm in common areas and would not be allowed near specific sections of the residential complex.
However, he alleges that these assurances were never implemented.
Instead, he claims that Ogutu continued moving freely within the property and that residents later reported seeing him carrying a firearm in shared areas despite earlier assurances from management.
The complainant alleges that while he was treated as the victim, he simultaneously faced restrictions that prevented him from participating in certain community activities and events.
He further claims that despite repeated requests, management failed to adequately address his safety concerns.
The controversy has also drawn in law enforcement agencies.
The complainant alleges that officers attached to DCI Gigiri, including senior officers he identifies by name, failed to act on his complaints despite being provided with evidence of threats and harassment.
According to the complainant, he was repeatedly assured that action would be taken regarding Ogutu's firearm status and other complaints.
He alleges those assurances were never fulfilled.
The complainant further claims that several oversight bodies, including the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), DCI Headquarters, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), and other institutions have either received complaints or are reviewing aspects of the matter.
However, the status and outcome of any such complaints remain unclear.
The allegations become even more serious when discussing claims involving women who allegedly interacted with Ogutu.
The complainant states that multiple women have privately contacted him claiming they experienced harassment and intimidation and, in some cases, allegedly felt compelled to leave Kenya.
These claims have not been independently verified, and no court findings regarding those allegations were immediately available.
Nevertheless, the complainant argues that the reports point to what he believes is a broader pattern of behaviour that deserves investigation.
The dispute has also led to renewed attention on historical public records involving Ogutu's time at the Postal Corporation of Kenya.
The complainant points to court documents relating to the wider PostaPay controversy, including judicial proceedings involving Ogutu's suspension and dismissal from the Postal Corporation following investigations into the PostaPay Electronic Funds Transfer system.
According to the public court record, Ogutu challenged actions taken against him by the Postal Corporation after being sent on compulsory leave and later dismissed following investigations connected to the PostaPay system.
In the process of looking deeper into this matter, our team found public records linking Tom Ogutu to the older PostaPay scandal at Postal Corporation of Kenya. Public court records refer to a KSh 44 million unaccounted-for amount in the wider PostaPay case, and a KACC-related letter rogatory raised allegations about possible conflict-of-interest issues, including claims that Ogutu’s brother-in-law Edwin Nyambeche was Vice President of Afripayments LLC and that Ogutu was allegedly a secret director of APL/AKL.
The complainant also references historical allegations raised in anti-corruption investigations involving conflict-of-interest concerns. He emphasizes that these were allegations contained in public records and not claims he originated himself.
For the complainant, however, the central issue remains what he describes as a failure of institutions to protect individuals who raise concerns against powerful and well-connected figures.
He argues that the matter is no longer simply about unpaid work or a business disagreement.
Instead, he says it has become a test of whether complaints involving threats, intimidation, xenophobia, and abuse of power receive equal treatment regardless of who is involved.
The complainant maintains that he is publishing the information because he fears for his safety and wants a public record of the allegations, should anything happen to him
He further argues that transparency is his only protection.
As of publication, Thomas Mboya Ogutu, VeGrid Energy, Enaki Management, HassConsult Management, DCI Gigiri, and the other parties mentioned in the allegations had not responded within the context of the material reviewed for this article.
The allegations remain contested and unproven. Any response from the individuals or institutions named would be essential in establishing the full facts surrounding the dispute.
What is not disputed is that the conflict has escalated far beyond a commercial disagreement.
It now involves allegations of threats, xenophobic abuse, institutional failures, police conduct, personal security concerns, and questions about whether individuals with influence receive different treatment when complaints are made against them.
For the complainant, the question remains simple:
If documented threats and repeated complaints do not trigger meaningful action, where exactly is a victim supposed to turn for protection?