Six Kenyan citizens have filed a petition with the High Court, seeking to halt the government's financial commitments to a friendly match between Bayern Munich and AFC Ajax scheduled for January 5, 2027, at Raila Odinga International Stadium. The petitioners, Erick Sayialel, Julius Kimani, Dickson Kimathi, Nicholas Ochieng, Mulinge Muteti, and Collins Otieno, are demanding disclosure of the financial arrangements behind the event. They argue that the government's announcement that the event will be delivered through corporate partnerships and a self-sustaining commercial model does not clarify whether public resources will be used.
The petitioners want the court to issue interim orders to bar the State from authorizing, allocating, releasing, or spending public money on the event unless it complies with the Constitution and financial laws. They also seek orders to stop the government from entering into financial commitments, guarantees, indemnities, or contractual obligations that could expose taxpayers to liabilities connected with the match. Furthermore, they want to halt any negotiations, engagements, or transactions between the State and the two clubs pending the hearing and determination of the case.
President William Ruto announced on October 28 that Bayern Munich and Ajax would play a friendly match at the new stadium on January 5, 2027. The petitioners argue that describing the event as privately sponsored does not necessarily mean that the government and Kenyan taxpayers are completely free from direct or indirect financial obligations. They cite media reports indicating that Bayern Munich could receive five million euros as an appearance fee, but they have not independently verified this figure.
The petitioners are seeking disclosure of all sponsorship agreements and contracts with the two clubs or their representatives. They want to know the identities of corporate sponsors, their respective financial contributions and obligations, and the total financial value of the event. This includes payments to Bayern Munich and Ajax, budgets for appearance fees, travel, accommodation, security, insurance, hospitality, and other logistical expenses.
The petition also seeks details of any public funds, government guarantees, subsidies, indemnities, public personnel, security services, transport, or other State resources committed to the event. The petitioners want all financial records, procurement documents, sponsorship agreements, contracts, correspondence, approvals, and Cabinet memoranda relating to the match preserved until the case is determined. They rely on Articles 35 and 201 of the Constitution, which provide for access to information held by the State and require openness, accountability, and prudent use of public money.
The petition raises questions over who will meet the visiting teams' appearance fees and logistical costs, whether public facilities and personnel will be provided at public expense, and whether the government will receive revenue or other measurable benefits. The petitioners argue that Kenya faces competing demands for public funding, including unemployment, healthcare, education, roads, and access to essential services. They insist that they are not opposed to international sporting cooperation or hosting foreign football teams but want the government to demonstrate that any financial commitment to the match is lawful and offers value for money.
The applicants have asked the court to certify the matter as urgent and hear it on a priority basis. The court is yet to determine the petition or grant the orders sought. The Law Society of Kenya and Katiba Institute have been listed as interested parties, and the petitioners have sued the Attorney-General, the Sports Cabinet Secretary, the National Treasury Cabinet Secretary, and Sports Kenya.
Key points
- The petitioners seek to halt government funding for the Bayern-Ajax match unless it complies with the Constitution and financial laws.
- The petitioners demand disclosure of financial arrangements behind the event, including sponsorship agreements and contracts.
- The case raises questions over the use of public funds and resources for the match and seeks an independent audit of all public expenditure and financial commitments.
