Four Thwake Project Officials at Centre of Questions Over Community Engagement and Compensation Exercise.

 

MAVINDINI, Makueni — Questions are mounting over the role of four consultants involved in community engagement, safety and compensation matters at the Thwake Multipurpose Water Development Programme, as residents affected by blasting activities demand greater transparency over how their grievances have been handled. 

At the centre of the concerns are Rhoda Kambua, Gender and Social Development Expert; Augustine Makau, Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Expert; Francis Muema, Safety Expert; and Dominic Kyenza, Liaison Officer. 

Residents say the four have been among the key individuals interacting with affected communities on matters ranging from social issues and safety to the recent assessment and compensation process. 

The community is now questioning whether adequate safeguards were in place to guarantee an impartial and transparent process, particularly after many affected residents were excluded from the recent assessment and compensation exercise. Of particular concern to residents is Francis Muema, whom they say was directly involved in the signing of the compensation agreements presented to affected property owners. 

The agreements reportedly describe the payments as compensation for assessed cracks while also characterising the payments as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and requiring recipients to release the contractor and/or Ministry from further claims relating to the assessed damage. 

Residents question why they were being asked to sign agreements releasing further claims before being given the technical reports, photographs, measurements, valuation information and Bills of Quantities used to determine the amounts offered. 

The concerns come against the backdrop of widespread complaints about blasting-related damage in Mavindini Ward, including cracks in houses and other structures, vibration, noise, dust and reported impacts on livestock, agriculture and livelihoods. 

Majority allegedly excluded 

Residents say the recent exercise did not reach the majority of people affected by blasting. 

According to the community, many households were neither invited nor adequately notified about assessment meetings. Residents also allege that there was no meaningful public participation through which the wider affected community could understand the assessment methodology, raise concerns or verify who had been identified as affected. 

The community has further raised questions about the involvement of local administration, including chief, in identifying and communicating with affected residents. Residents allege that the process was compromised and that some genuinely affected households were consequently left out. 

The community is demanding disclosure of the criteria used to identify beneficiaries and a comprehensive exercise capable of capturing all affected households. 

Conflicting assessments 

Another major concern is the existence of different assessments conducted by technical teams involved in the project. 

Residents say earlier assessments by SMEC and the Ministry of Public Works involved inspections, photographs, measurements and documentation of damage. In some cases, residents say cracks were physically marked and recorded. 

However, they question how those findings were reconciled with subsequent independent assessments which, according to residents, in some cases involved brief inspections and captured only a limited portion of the visible damage. 

The community is consequently demanding the release of the complete assessment records, including photographs, field notes, measurements, crack mapping, methodologies, findings and recommendations. 

Compensation under scrutiny 

Some residents have reportedly been offered between KSh 5,000 and KSh 20,000 for damage to their properties. 

Residents argue that the amounts cannot be meaningfully assessed without seeing the technical and valuation evidence behind them. 

They are particularly concerned that accepting the proposed payments could amount to surrendering further claims while residents have not been given sufficient information to determine whether all the damage to their properties was actually captured. 

The issue is particularly significant because the project's own Stakeholder Engagement Plan recognises blasting-related house cracking, physical harm, health and safety risks, delayed compensation and failure to consult, sensitise or disclose project impacts as potential grievances requiring engagement with affected communities. 

Community organises 

The concerns have prompted affected residents to organise collectively. 

On 11 August 2026, residents held a community meeting at Mathangathi Market, attended by hundreds of affected residents from more than 30 villages. The meeting resolved to establish a coordinated community structure to document grievances and engage project and government authorities. 

A second and larger meeting was held on 25 August 2026, drawing more than 900 residents from approximately 40 villages, according to community records. 

The community has since submitted formal grievances to government authorities and the African Development Bank, which has acknowledged receipt of its concerns. 

The residents have also engaged elected leaders and other government officials and are compiling photographs, attendance registers, meeting minutes, correspondence and other evidence relating to the alleged damage and compensation process. 

Questions over the four officials 

The community insists it is not accusing the four officials of wrongdoing merely because they are involved in the project. 

However, residents say the concentration of important community-facing functions among officials reportedly from the same area in Kitui County has prompted questions about independence, disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and safeguards against perceived bias. 

There have also been claims within the community that some of the individuals may have personal relationships with one another. The community says it is seeking clarification rather than making an allegation of wrongdoing. 

The central question, residents say, is whether the project has mechanisms to ensure that those responsible for engaging affected communities and implementing the assessment and compensation process operate independently and transparently. 

Seeking legal intervention 

The community is now seeking assistance from civil society organisations and legal actors to examine the entire process, rather than merely negotiate individual compensation amounts. 

Among the issues they want addressed are the alleged exclusion of affected households, public participation, access to project records, technical assessment of damage, compensation methodology, environmental and safety concerns, Health, the role of local administration and the legal implications of the agreements being presented to residents. 

The community is also considering whether to pursue legal action seeking interim orders to restrain ongoing works in affected areas until outstanding grievances and safeguards concerns are properly addressed. 

The Thwake project remains a major AfDB-supported infrastructure project. In June 2026, the African Development Bank Group announced an additional €68.39 million in financing to support completion of the project, which it said was approximately 90 percent complete. 

The Bank's project documentation also identifies Makueni and Kitui among the project areas and places responsibility for implementation with the Ministry of Water. 

For the affected residents, however, the immediate demand is straightforward: full disclosure, an independent and comprehensive assessment of damage, meaningful participation of all affected households, and a transparent process before residents are asked to accept payments or surrender further claims.

The officials named in this article had not, at the time of publication, publicly responded to the specific questions raised by the community concerning their roles, the assessment process and the compensation agreements.