STABEX International Chairperson Jackson Chebett has moved to court, filing a defamation suit against former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua over remarks linking him to the ongoing fuel procurement saga that has dominated public discourse in recent weeks.In documents filed before the court, Chebett accuses Gachagua of making what he terms as false, misleading, and damaging statements alleging his involvement in the controversial government-to-government (G-to-G) fuel importation deal.
The businessman argues that the claims have not only misrepresented his role but have also caused significant harm to his personal reputation and the corporate image of STABEX International.Chebett maintains that neither he nor his company has participated in, or benefited from, the G-to-G fuel arrangement.
He insists that STABEX operates independently within the energy sector and has no contractual or informal links to the disputed deal currently under investigation and political scrutiny.In addition, Chebett has strongly denied claims suggesting any association with President William Ruto.
He describes such allegations as baseless and politically motivated, arguing that they are intended to draw him into a controversy in which he has no involvement.The lawsuit comes at a time when the fuel import framework has sparked widespread debate across the country, with opposition leaders and civil society groups raising concerns over transparency, accountability, and the rising cost of fuel.
The G-to-G deal, which was introduced as a mechanism to stabilize the Kenyan shilling and ensure steady fuel supply, has instead faced criticism from various quarters questioning its implementation and beneficiaries.
Legal experts note that defamation cases of this nature often hinge on the ability of the claimant to prove that the statements made were false, published to third parties, and resulted in reputational damage.Chebett is expected to seek damages as well as a public retraction and apology from Gachagua.Efforts to reach Rigathi Gachagua for comment on the matter have not yet yielded a response.
However, the case is likely to intensify the already charged political environment surrounding the fuel saga, which continues to draw attention from both leaders and the public.
As the matter proceeds to court, it is expected to shed more light on the claims and counterclaims surrounding the fuel procurement process, while also testing the boundaries between political expression and defamation under Kenyan law.
