Former Sports PS Peter Kaberia and 8 Others Charged Over Sh330 Million CHAN Funds
The accused appeared in court on charges including abuse of office and financial misconduct over funds meant for the 2018 Africa Nations Championship. The case is undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 8:18 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 8, 2026, 8:18 a.m. ETFirst report
Former Sports PS Peter Kaberia and 8 Others Charged Over Sh330 Million CHAN Funds
Former Sports Principal Secretary Peter Kirimi Kaberia and eight others were charged on September 8, 2026, at the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court over the alleged misappropriation of Sh330 million set aside for preparations to host the 2018 Africa Nations Championship (CHAN), according to Capital FM Africa. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the charges are allegations that have not been proven in court.
The government alleges that the funds were moved through several entities in a layered transaction intended to conceal their origin. The accused face charges including abuse of office, unlawful acquisition of public property, failure to comply with procurement laws, acquisition of proceeds of crime, financial misconduct, and conspiracy to commit an economic crime, as reported by Capital FM Africa.
The other accused are Stephen Njoroge Muthuma, Enock Ondwari Onditi, John Kiende Ruga, Anthony Mwangi Kimanthi, Lease Pride Limited, Samuel Mbaa Njoroge, Taxwise Consulting Limited, and Liroma Assurance Services Limited. The case was brought by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). All charges are allegations, and the accused are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 12:21current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 12:18current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 12:22
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.