A fresh political storm has emerged following claims by political strategist Pauline Njoroge, who has alleged that some matatu industry leaders were pressured or incentivised to accept a government proposal to suspend a nationwide strike over fuel prices.
In a statement circulated online, Njoroge claimed that senior government officials were “busy trying to bribe some matatu owners” to call off the industrial action.
She further alleged that some representatives may have already accepted undisclosed payments and could soon announce a temporary suspension of the strike in favour of a Sh10 reduction in diesel prices, pending further negotiations.
“Some may have taken the money and could hold a presser in the next few hours, saying they have accepted the 10 bob reduction in diesel prices for now, and are calling off the strike until Monday to give the government more time to work on other interventions,” she stated, adding that such a move would amount to short-term manipulation rather than a lasting solution.
The remarks come at a time when the government and transport sector stakeholders are engaged in sensitive discussions aimed at defusing tensions triggered by high fuel costs.
The talks followed disruptions in major towns, where matatu operators had either withdrawn services or staged protests, citing unsustainable operating costs linked to rising diesel prices.
Government officials, including representatives from the energy and transport ministries, have been in negotiations with industry leaders to avert a prolonged shutdown of public transport services.
Authorities have defended the engagement process as necessary to stabilise the sector and prevent further economic disruption.
However, Njoroge’s allegations have added a political dimension to the talks, raising questions about transparency in the negotiation process.
She criticised the use of what she termed “shortcuts,” arguing that public frustration over fuel prices could not be resolved through temporary financial inducements to industry representatives.
“Why use public money to bribe and silence people instead of fixing the problem?” she posed, further questioning when the administration would address what she described as structural economic grievances affecting ordinary citizens.