Fresh questions are emerging after KenGen announced it had completed the purchase of two office buildings from its own Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme in a deal worth Sh1.9 billion.

The transaction, which has largely been presented as a routine investment, deserves far closer scrutiny.

KenGen is Kenya's largest electricity producer. Every year, the company reports billions in revenue while households and businesses continue to complain about the high cost of electricity. Against that backdrop, many investors and consumers are asking whether buying office buildings should really be a priority.

The company says the acquisition will strengthen its property portfolio and provide long term value. That explanation may satisfy some observers. Others believe the bigger story lies in the questions that have not yet been answered.

The buildings were purchased from KenGen's own pension scheme. That makes this a related party transaction, one that naturally attracts public interest because the same institution is effectively doing business with a fund established for its employees.

While related party transactions are not unusual, they demand the highest level of transparency.

Shareholders deserve to know how the Sh1.9 billion purchase price was arrived at.

Was an independent valuation carried out before the transaction?

Did the board receive independent advice before approving the acquisition?

Were minority shareholders given enough information to assess whether the purchase represented value for money?

What annual financial return does KenGen expect from owning the buildings compared to investing the same amount in expanding electricity generation or reducing borrowing?

These are reasonable questions for any listed company spending billions of shillings.

The timing of the acquisition is also likely to attract attention.

Across the country, families continue to struggle with electricity bills that many consider expensive. Manufacturers have repeatedly cited energy costs as one of the biggest obstacles to doing business in Kenya.

Against that reality, Kenyans are entitled to ask whether Sh1.9 billion could have delivered greater value if invested directly in projects that improve generation efficiency, modernise ageing infrastructure, reduce operational costs or strengthen shareholder returns.

Investors may also question whether the acquisition aligns with KenGen's core mandate.

KenGen exists primarily to generate electricity, not to build a large commercial property portfolio.

If the acquisition forms part of a wider property investment strategy, shareholders deserve a clear explanation of that strategy, the expected returns and how it supports the company's long term objectives.

Corporate governance experts have long maintained that related party transactions should be subjected to the highest standards of disclosure because public confidence depends not only on legality but also on openness.

This is not to suggest there was wrongdoing in the transaction.

Rather, it is a reminder that when billions of shillings move between a listed company and its own pension scheme, the public expects complete transparency.

KenGen now has an opportunity to answer those questions.

Clear disclosure on the valuation process, board approvals, expected financial returns and the strategic purpose of the acquisition would go a long way in assuring shareholders that the Sh1.9 billion deal was driven purely by commercial value and not convenience.

For a company that belongs to thousands of investors and plays a central role in Kenya's energy sector, transparency is not optional. It is part of the job.