Gambling boss Karimi faces ouster over alleged conflict of interest

The tenure of Peter Maina Karimi as Director General of the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) could be cut short after a petition was filed in the High Court challenging the legality of his appointment.

Karimi was appointed in February this year, but the appointment has sparked controversy following claims that he was still serving as chief executive officer of betting firm M-cheza at the time he was hired to head the regulator.

The case, filed before High Court Judge Patricia Nyaundi by petitioner Patrick Mwashigadi, accuses the GRA board of ignoring provisions of the Gambling Control Act, No. 14 of 2025 when it selected Karimi.

According to court papers, the petition raises concerns of conflict of interest because Karimi was allegedly an active participant in the betting industry while being appointed to oversee and regulate the same sector.

The petitioner, Mwashigadi, thus says Karimi’s appointment was unlawful.

Mwashigadi’s lawyer, Abdirahman Mohamed, argued that the appointment breached the law.

“The appointment of the fourth respondent as Director General of the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) vide the announcement dated February 26, 2026, is patently unlawful, ultra vires, null and void ab initio, as the fourth respondent is disqualified under the express provisions of the Gambling Control Act, No. 14 of 2025.”

Mohamed cited Section 8(1)(f) of the Act, which bars any person who has been a director, employee, or shareholder of a betting company from appointment to the authority unless they left the company at least five years earlier.

“The fourth respondent has been the Chief Executive Officer of M-cheza – a licensed gambling or sports betting operator in Kenya, continuously since 2016 to date, which is over 10 years, including the preceding five years, as evidenced by media articles, professional profiles, and public records. He therefore fails the statutory qualification and cannot lawfully make the required declaration under Section 8(1)(f) of no conflicting interests in the gambling sector.”

The petition also accuses the GRA board of material non-disclosure, alleging that it deliberately omitted the name of Karimi’s most recent employer in its announcement of his appointment.

“This is evidence that the respondents have committed a material non-disclosure by failing to name the exact position and company the 4th respondent (Karimi) was working at immediately before the appointment.”

Mohamed further claimed that Karimi was linked to Umsuka Capital Limited, a financial services company allegedly closed for non-compliance, arguing that this further weakened his suitability for the role.

GRA announcement omitted company name

In a press release dated February 26, 2026 and signed by board chair Joseph Kirui Limo, the GRA announced Karimi’s appointment after what it described as successful interviews.

The statement said Karimi had most recently worked for a technology company focused on financial services products and platforms, but it did not identify the company by name. It also noted that he had previously worked at Société BIC and Nokia International.

Karimi seeks to have case struck out

Karimi has asked the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the dispute concerns employment and should instead be heard by the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

Through his lawyer Moureen Lagat, Karimi argued that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter.

“The petitioner has neither demonstrated how his fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution have been violated or are threatened nor has he tethered any evidence to prove the alleged violations.”

Lagat also challenged the evidence relied upon by the petitioner, saying it consisted of internal communications obtained unlawfully.

“Additionally, the petitioner is relying on documents containing internal communication of the respondents which he illegally and unprocedurally acquired which, as an outsider, he has not disclosed how he acquired the documents. The authenticity and accuracy of the documents relied upon by the Petitioner in both his Petition and Application cannot be ascertained.”

In his supporting affidavit, Karimi maintained that Mwashigadi had not shown how his own constitutional rights were affected by the appointment.

“The desire to remedy what the petitioner perceives to be violations of the Constitution on the appointment of the fourth respondent by the first respondent does not justify seeking redress from a forum in which the Constitution has not vested the power to issue such a remedy.”

Karimi described the petition as fatally defective and said any challenge to the appointment process should be pursued in the Labour Court.

The GRA board and the Attorney General had not filed responses by the time of going to press. The case is scheduled for mention on July 27, 2026.