The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has officially closed its investigation into the Football Kenya Federation (FKF) over the procurement of insurance services for the 2024 African Nations Championship (CHAN), ruling that the transaction falls outside its jurisdiction.
The decision follows a review of FKF’s response to allegations of irregular procurement, conflict of interest, and misapplication of funds in the appointment of Riskwell Insurance Brokers Limited for the tournament’s insurance arrangements.
PPRA noted that it had examined the federation’s explanation and established that the procurement process was conducted under the procurement framework of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and financed entirely through a CAF-controlled account.
No Public Funds Used in Procurement
According to PPRA, FKF demonstrated that no public funds appropriated by Parliament, county governments, or any Kenyan public institution were used in the insurance procurement process.
Instead, all funds originated from CAF and were administered in accordance with CAF’s financial and procurement procedures.
PPRA noted that its oversight mandate is triggered when public funds are involved in a procurement process. While FKF is not automatically classified as a public entity under Kenya’s procurement laws, any procurement financed through public resources would fall under PPRA’s oversight.
“To the extent that the FKF utilizes public funds for any procurement activity, the Authority would be mandated to provide oversight for that specific transaction,” PPRA stated.
FIFA and CAF Independence Rules Considered
FKF also argued that FIFA and CAF statutes require member associations to manage their affairs independently and without interference from third parties.
The federation cited Articles 14 and 19 of the FIFA Statutes, which emphasize the autonomy of national football associations and prohibit external influence in their governance and operations.
According to FKF, any attempt by a public regulatory body to supervise or direct procurement activities funded and governed exclusively by FIFA or CAF would be inconsistent with those international obligations.
Authority Finds No Basis for Further Investigation
After assessing the information presented, PPRA concluded that the procurement in question does not qualify as public procurement under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act because no public funds were utilized.
“As such, the transaction is not governed by the Act, and the Authority has no jurisdiction to further investigate the concerns raised in the complaint,” the regulator said.
The Authority subsequently closed the matter under Section 9(h) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
Despite closing the case, PPRA emphasized that its decision was based solely on the information and documentation submitted during the review process.
The Authority noted that the closure does not absolve individuals involved in the procurement process from personal responsibility should new information emerge in the future.
