ADVERT 
ADVERTThe Siaya International Trade and Investment Conference (SITICO) was conceived as a flagship initiative to reposition Siaya County as an investment destination, attract capital, create jobs and unlock opportunities in agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, energy and the blue economy.
But more than a year after the conference was scheduled to take place in October 2025, a different question is demanding answers: Who was paid millions of shillings to organise and publicise an event that never took place as planned, what services were actually delivered, and where is the full account of the money spent?
The questions are no longer merely political rhetoric. In April 2026, The Star reported that the National Assembly’s Budget and Appropriations Committee had declined to approve Sh60 million in expenditure associated with the cancelled conference. The committee reportedly argued that the expenditure was unjustified because the event did not take place.
That parliamentary scrutiny has placed SITICO’s financial management squarely in the public accountability arena. Yet the public still needs a comprehensive, itemised explanation of the expenditure, the contracts awarded, the services delivered and the steps taken to address Parliament’s concerns.
For Siaya residents, the issue is not whether the county was right to pursue investment. It was. The issue is whether public money was managed transparently, economically and in accordance with the law.
ADVERTA conference that never opened as planned
SITICO 2025 was scheduled for October 14–17 at Siaya National Polytechnic, with the ambitious theme of positioning Siaya as an investment destination through transformative growth in trade and investment.
The programme promised high-level discussions, exhibitions, sectoral forums, investor networking, project visits and the signing of memoranda of understanding. The county government promoted the event as a gateway to partnerships capable of transforming the local economy.
Preparations were extensive. County officials engaged national government representatives, business leaders, potential investors and other stakeholders. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Digital Economy announced plans to support the event through government media platforms, including the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, Kenya News Agency and the MyGov publication.
Then tragedy intervened.
On October 15, 2025, the day the conference was expected to begin its public programme, news broke of the death of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga in India. Raila had been expected to play a prominent role in the event, including presiding over its closing ceremony.
The conference was halted as Siaya joined the country in mourning one of its most influential political figures.
In an account published by the Kenya News Agency on October 15, 2026, County Secretary Elizabeth Adongo recalled how the planned exhibition and conference venue became a gathering place for mourners. She said investors and industry leaders who had travelled to Siaya understood why the event could not proceed.
The circumstances surrounding the cancellation deserve sensitivity. No reasonable person would suggest that county officials could have controlled the tragedy that disrupted their plans.
But an unforeseen event does not extinguish the obligation to account for public funds.
The Sh60 million question Parliament raised
The most consequential development in the SITICO controversy is the reported parliamentary rejection of Sh60 million in expenditure incurred under Article 223 of the Constitution.
Article 223 provides a framework for government expenditure in specified circumstances before parliamentary approval of the relevant supplementary estimates, subject to constitutional and statutory safeguards. It is not a blanket exemption from financial accountability.
According to The Star report of April 3, 2026, the National Assembly’s Budget and Appropriations Committee declined to approve the Sh60 million associated with SITICO, arguing that the event did not take place and that the expenditure was therefore unjustified.
That finding raises fundamental questions. What exactly was procured? Which services had been completed before the cancellation? Which contracts could lawfully be terminated or varied? Were any advance payments made, and, where applicable, were refunds or recoveries pursued?
These questions cannot be answered adequately by explaining why the conference was cancelled. They require documentary evidence.
It is also important to distinguish between Parliament declining to approve expenditure and a court or investigative agency establishing theft or personal culpability. The reported parliamentary decision is a serious accountability development, but it does not, by itself, prove that any individual stole public money.
The public deserves facts, not speculation. It also deserves more than silence.
Some concern surrounds a reported Sh4 million payment to a leading media house for publicity associated with SITICO.
The reported figure demands verification against the contract, procurement records, invoices, payment vouchers and evidence of services rendered. The identity of the media house, the precise contractual terms and the amount actually paid should be established through official records rather than rumour.
If the Sh4 million payment was made, the county should explain what the contract covered. Was it for television and radio advertising, newspaper supplements, digital campaigns, event coverage, promotional production or a combination of services?
Were advertisements broadcast or published? Were campaign materials produced and distributed? Were the agreed deliverables completed before the conference was cancelled? If work was partially completed, how was the payable amount assessed? If services were not delivered, what contractual remedies were pursued?
Who was handling publicity with local media partners and why were some of them not paid even after hosting SITICO adverts on their websites for months?
These are ordinary questions of public financial management, not an attack on the media industry.
A media organisation is entitled to payment for properly contracted and delivered work. Equally, a public entity must demonstrate that payments were supported by valid contracts, verified deliverables and the applicable procurement and financial procedures.
The same standard must apply to every contractor, supplier, consultant and service provider associated with SITICO, otherwise an event billed to lift up the trade portfolio of Siaya may end up being a closet of skeletons to haunt well-meaning leaders.
