Gatanga Member of Parliament, Edward Muriu, is facing scrutiny over questionable payments from the now-defunct National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) amounting to KSh 500 million. Muriu, who has been a vocal critic of President William Ruto’s policies, particularly the establishment of the Social Health Authority (SHA) that replaced NHIF, now finds himself at the center of a growing controversy that questions whether his opposition to the health reforms has been motivated by personal interests.
In 2018, NHIF hired Muriu’s law firm, Muriu Mungai & Company Advocates (MMC), to draft contracts for healthcare service providers for the 2018/2019 financial year. The firm was responsible for preparing 6,700 agreements but later reported that it had completed 7,009 contracts. The scope of the work, as outlined, included drafting, negotiating terms, conducting company searches, attending meetings, printing, binding, and stamping the contracts.
However, three months later, MMC submitted a fee note of KSh 500 million to NHIF for the services rendered, raising concerns over whether the payment was justified. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) launched an inquiry into the payment, but by the time the investigation began, NHIF had already paid Muriu KSh 302 million.
The situation escalated further in October 2022 when MMC filed a lawsuit seeking the remaining balance of KSh 172 million. After a prolonged legal battle, NHIF agreed to pay the outstanding amount of KSh 175.2 million to Muriu’s firm in four installments, with the final payment due by May 30, 2024.
This revelation has raised more questions about Muriu’s staunch opposition to the health reforms implemented by President Ruto. Critics now speculate that Muriu may be among the individuals or “cartels” that the President has accused of sabotaging the new health authority to preserve the flow of public funds to their personal interests.
As the investigation into the payment continues, the controversy surrounding Muriu’s involvement in the NHIF payments, coupled with his ongoing political opposition, adds a new layer of complexity to the national conversation on health reforms. Whether his criticism of SHA is rooted in genuine policy concerns or personal financial interests remains a point of intense debate.
About The Author
