A storm is brewing over Kenya’s long-awaited oil dream after Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna accused President William Ruto of pushing a deeply skewed oil agreement driven by selfish interests.
At the centre of the controversy is the Turkana Oil FDP, now before the Senate for ratification. What is being sold publicly as a breakthrough for Turkana County and the national economy is, according to Sifuna, a cleverly disguised extraction scheme that leaves Kenyans empty-handed while insiders walk away with billions.
Turkana Oil FDP Under Scrutiny In Parliament
The Turkana Oil FDP has landed in Parliament at a time when public trust in large-scale government deals is already thin. The Senate formally tabled the South Lokichar Field Development Plan together with the associated Production Sharing Contracts for Blocks T6 and T7, triggering a constitutional requirement for parliamentary ratification and public participation.
Under Article 71 of the Constitution, Parliament must approve any agreement involving the exploitation of natural resources. The Senate Standing Committee on Energy has since invited Kenyans to submit memoranda before a January deadline.
On paper, the Turkana Oil FDP outlines the commercial development of six oil discoveries in the Lokichar Basin, including infrastructure plans, environmental safeguards, and community obligations.
But Sifuna insists the real story lies beneath the technical language. He argues the process has been engineered to benefit a few powerful players while stripping Turkana residents and taxpayers of meaningful returns from Kenya’s oil.
Ownership Changes Raise Red Flags
One of Sifuna’s sharpest criticisms targets the company behind the project. He notes that the firm set to produce oil in Turkana, now operating under Gulf Energy after shedding the Tullow name, changed ownership and identity multiple times within weeks.
According to the ODM Secretary General, these rapid shifts were not cosmetic. They coincided with key alterations to the Turkana Oil FDP that fundamentally changed how profits will be shared. To him, the speed and secrecy of the changes suggest insider coordination rather than routine corporate restructuring.
Sifuna argues that Kenyans were never adequately informed about who truly controls the oil assets or why ownership changed just before Parliament was asked to approve the deal. He warns that without transparency, the country risks locking itself into a contract whose beneficiaries remain hidden.
Contract Variations Tilt Profits Away From Kenyans
At the heart of the accusations is a controversial amendment to the cost recovery framework within the Turkana Oil FDP. Sifuna points to a November 25 variation that raised the maximum recoverable cost from 55 percent to a staggering 85 percent.
In simple terms, this means the oil company can recoup most of its expenses before the government sees any profit. Sifuna argues that such a high threshold all but guarantees that Kenyans will receive little or nothing from their oil for years.
He further highlights amendments expanding what qualifies as capital expenditure. Labour, fuel, repairs, maintenance, hauling, supplies and even decommissioning costs are now included. Sifuna says this creates a loophole wide enough to swallow all revenues, allowing the operator to continuously declare costs and delay profit sharing indefinitely.
Local Content Laws Sidelined By Design
Another flashpoint is the apparent exclusion of local content protections. Parliament previously passed legislation requiring oil companies to prioritise local labour, goods, and services. This was intended to ensure communities near extraction sites directly benefit from resource exploitation.
Sifuna claims the Turkana Oil FDP cleverly exempts the current operator from these requirements. In his view, this was a deliberate move to bypass safeguards meant to empower Turkana residents and Kenyan businesses.
He accuses the political leadership of behaving like brokers rather than stewards of public resources. His language has been blunt, arguing that the agreement reflects a government more interested in deal-making than development.
Public Participation or Rubber Stamp Exercise?
While the Senate insists the Turkana Oil FDP review process is open and participatory, critics fear public input will change little. The Standing Committee on Energy has made the documents available and invited submissions through mail, email, and hand delivery.
Yet Sifuna warns that once Parliament ratifies the agreement, reversing it will be nearly impossible. He urges Kenyans to scrutinise the fine print and speak out before the window closes.
The Turkana Oil FDP was supposed to mark Kenya’s entry into the league of oil-producing nations. Instead, it has become a test of whether the country can manage its natural resources without repeating the mistakes that have plagued other extractive economies.
For Sifuna, the issue goes beyond party politics. He frames the deal as a defining moment for accountability, transparency, and economic justice. Whether Parliament heeds the warning or pushes the agreement through will shape not just Turkana’s future, but also Kenya’s credibility in managing its most valuable assets.
