By Dickens Ochieng

For the better part of the last decade, the global conversation has centred around just transition – moving away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy systems. Wind and solar became the symbols of that future, not only because they were cleaner, but increasingly because they were becoming cheaper and more scalable.

Governments, investors, development finance institutions, and corporations aligned around the same message – that the future would be green.

But something significant is changing beneath the surface. The emergence of AI – and more specifically the global race to build AI data centres – is beginning to reshape energy politics in ways many people have not fully grasped yet.

If you listened carefully during recent discussions at the World Economic Forum, one comment stood out. The CEO of Blackstone, itself a major investor in renewable energy and transition infrastructure, acknowledged a growing reality: that wind and solar alone are not reliable enough to support the uninterrupted power demands required by hyperscale AI data centres.

That statement matters. Because when major capital allocators begin questioning the reliability of renewables for next-generation infrastructure, it signals more than a technical concern – it signals a geopolitical and economic shift.

AI data centres consume enormous amounts of electricity. Not ordinary levels of power, but continuous, industrial-scale, 24/7 energy loads. Countries and companies are now scrambling to secure stable baseload power sources capable of supporting this new digital arms race. Some are even exploring ocean-based cooling systems and alternative energy configurations to reduce pressure on national grids.

And this is where the contradiction begins to emerge. For years, coal plants were being retired, oil and gas investments discouraged, and fossil fuel financing increasingly restricted. Yet now, in the race for AI dominance, we may witness a quiet return to energy sources once politically unpopular – including natural gas, coal-fired power in some jurisdictions, and a renewed global embrace of nuclear energy framed as “clean” and reliable.

Energy transition may no longer be driven primarily by climate politics. It may increasingly be driven by compute power and AI competitiveness.

That changes everything. It changes how governments think about energy security. It changes how investors allocate capital. It changes which countries become strategically important. And it changes the future of global climate commitments.

For Africa, this moment raises critical questions.

Will African countries once again be told to limit fossil fuel development while major economies quietly expand theirs to power AI infrastructure?

Will Africa’s vast reserves of gas, critical minerals, land, and renewable potential become strategic assets in the new AI-energy economy?

Or will the continent once again remain a supplier of raw inputs while others capture the value?

There is also a deeper community question.

What happens to communities that were promised a green transition economy if global priorities suddenly shift toward energy abundance at all costs? What happens to climate financing commitments? What happens to environmental justice conversations when technological supremacy becomes the dominant political objective?

And perhaps the biggest question of all: can the planet realistically sustain an AI revolution powered by exponentially growing energy consumption while still meeting global climate targets?

The AI race is not only reshaping technology. It is quietly rewriting the future of global energy politics.

In Kenya, we have not been exempted from the AI data centres gold rush. There have been ambitions to host a Microsoft AI data centre in Kenya.

We are witnessing a sudden and aggressive surge in energy demand driven by the global AI and data-centre race. With an overly ambitious president, Kenya has renewed its plan to put up a nuclear power plant at breakneck speed. We see the speed even when it means bypassing the people, whose views are actually critical to the project.

But this raises a deeper and more uncomfortable question: is the country truly prepared for such a leap, or are we chasing an illusion of technological prestige without fully understanding the economic, environmental, and institutional burden that comes with it?

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the global economy. Kenya, positioning itself as East Africa’s digital and innovation hub, understandably wants to be part of this future. The promise sounds attractive – more investment, more jobs, stronger infrastructure, and global relevance in the digital economy. Nuclear energy is therefore presented as a symbol of modernity and energy security – a way to provide stable, large-scale power beyond what hydro, geothermal, and solar currently offer.

However, the conversation cannot end at ambition alone. Nuclear power is not merely a technology project – it is a test of national readiness. It demands decades of regulatory discipline, highly specialized human capital, political stability, emergency preparedness systems, long-term waste management, and enormous financial commitment. Even some developed nations continue to struggle with the true cost and risks associated with nuclear energy.

Kenya must therefore confront difficult realities. Can the national grid efficiently absorb and distribute nuclear-generated power? Do we possess the institutional strength to manage safety standards free from corruption, political interference, or procurement scandals? Are citizens adequately informed about the environmental and health implications? Most importantly, are we investing in nuclear power because it is genuinely the best solution for Kenya’s future energy needs, or because the global AI boom has created pressure to appear technologically competitive?

There is also the danger of confusing visibility with progress. In many developing economies, mega-projects often become symbols of ambition while underlying structural challenges remain unresolved. Kenya still faces electricity access inequalities, high power costs for manufacturers, transmission losses, and unreliable supply in some regions. If these foundational problems persist, then a nuclear plant risks becoming an expensive monument to aspiration rather than a practical solution for ordinary citizens.

This does not mean Kenya should reject nuclear energy outright. On the contrary, the discussion is necessary and timely. But the country must approach it with realism rather than excitement driven by the AI gold rush. True technological advancement is not measured by how quickly a nation adopts grand projects, but by whether those projects are sustainable, inclusive, economically sound, and beneficial to future generations.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Kenya can build a nuclear power plant. The real question is whether Kenya is building the institutional, economic, and ethical foundation required to manage one responsibly in an age where the hunger for energy is accelerating faster than our readiness to supply it.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court.

By Billy Mijungu

There is a silent but significant shift happening within the financial investment environment. For decades, many investors preferred government securities because they were considered safe, predictable, and protected from the volatility associated with the stock market. Treasury bills and bonds became the comfort zone for many institutions and individual investors seeking guaranteed returns without the emotional pressure of market fluctuations. However, the investment climate is changing rapidly. The continuous outpouring of unabsorbed yet ring-fenced public funds has slowly redirected liquidity into the stock market, attracting investors searching for better returns, long-term capital growth, and sustainable wealth creation.

Today, more people are entering the stock market than ever before, but many are entering without emotional discipline or strategic direction. The stock market is not merely a place of numbers, charts, and speculation. It is a psychological battlefield where fear and greed determine the fate of investors more than intelligence alone. Many investors buy shares when prices are already rising sharply because excitement and public optimism dominate conversations. Unfortunately, when prices begin falling, panic quickly replaces confidence, forcing many to sell at losses and abandon their investments prematurely. Successful investing requires the opposite mindset. It demands calmness during decline and caution during rapid growth.

An investor must therefore develop simple internal rules that guide decision-making regardless of emotions. When a stock price falls slightly, patience becomes more important than panic. Small declines should not immediately trigger fear because markets naturally fluctuate. A disciplined investor understands that temporary declines are normal and often chooses to continue holding quality investments during such moments. When prices fall further and reach deeper corrections, this should not automatically be interpreted as disaster. Instead, gradual buying during weakness allows investors to accumulate valuable assets at discounted prices while reducing the emotional pressure associated with timing the market perfectly.

Similarly, when the market begins rising, discipline remains equally important. Small gains should not create unnecessary excitement because long-term wealth is not built from impatience. Investors who constantly rush to sell after every small increase often lose the opportunity to benefit from stronger long-term appreciation. However, when profits become substantial, gradual profit-taking becomes wise. Selling portions of holdings during major rallies protects gains while still allowing continued participation in future growth. This creates balance between optimism and caution.

The strongest investors are not those who predict markets perfectly. They are those who master emotional control. Markets move in cycles, and no stock rises forever. Likewise, no downturn lasts forever. Economic uncertainty, political tension, currency pressure, and temporary market corrections are all natural parts of investing. The investor who survives these cycles is usually the one who remains disciplined when others become emotional.

Many people confuse investing with gambling. Real investing is not driven by rumors, social media excitement, political propaganda, or fear of missing opportunities. Real investing is based on patience, consistency, and understanding that wealth creation is gradual. Short-term speculation may create excitement, but long-term investing creates stability. The greatest fortunes across global financial history were not created overnight. They were built slowly through disciplined accumulation and long-term holding of productive assets.

Time itself becomes one of the most powerful investment tools. A patient investor allows businesses to grow, dividends to compound, and market recoveries to strengthen portfolio value over years rather than days. This is why emotional stability matters as much as financial capital. Investors who panic during every downturn rarely experience the full benefits of market recovery. Those who remain calm during difficult periods often emerge stronger when conditions improve.

Financial literacy is therefore becoming increasingly important in modern society. Young people especially must begin understanding shares, dividends, capital appreciation, and compound growth because the future economy will reward ownership more than consumption. The stock market should not simply be viewed as a place to make quick profits. It should be seen as a platform where ordinary citizens participate in economic growth, innovation, and wealth creation.

Discipline plus patience remains the foundation of successful investing. The investor who learns to remain rational during market declines and cautious during rapid growth will always stand a stronger chance of achieving stable long-term success. Wealth is rarely created through emotional reactions. It is created through consistent decisions made over long periods of time.

Investments must always remain long-term.

By Edris Omondi (Advocate)

edris@crimepreven

 Edris Omondi is a lawyer and a crime prevention practitioner and the Executive Director of the Crime Prevention Initiative Trust (CPIT), Kisumu. He works on behavioral approaches to crime prevention, governance, and social policy.

When Politics Burns Humanity: A Nation Must Pause Before 2027

History is full of painful reminders of what happens when politics stops being about ideas and begins defining who deserves dignity, safety, or even life itself. In the early 1990s, the genocide in Rwanda did not begin with machetes. It began with words, labels, hatred, political division, and the dangerous normalization of seeing fellow citizens as enemies instead of neighbors.

Closer home, Kenya’s own 2007–2008 post-election violence remains one of the darkest chapters in our national memory. Communities that had lived together for generations suddenly turned against each other. Churches became places of fear. Homes were torched. Thousands were displaced. Over a thousand lives were lost.

Many Kenyans swore then: Never again.

Yet today, as the country slowly inches toward the 2027 elections, worrying signs of political intolerance are re-emerging. Social media hostility is growing sharper. Public discourse is becoming more toxic. Political identity is increasingly being treated like tribal identity; something to fight over, defend aggressively, and sometimes punish.

The recent incident involving gospel singer Rachael Wandeto should disturb the conscience of the nation. Reports indicate that she allegedly became a victim of arson, possibly because she bore a tattoo associated with President William Ruto. Whether one supports or opposes the President is beside the point. No political disagreement should ever justify violence, intimidation, destruction of property, or threats to life.

And that is where Kenya must draw a firm line.

A tattoo is not a death sentence. Political support is not a crime. Opposition is not treason. Democracy demands that citizens be free to express themselves without fear of mob justice or politically charged retaliation.

Sadly, there are already voices saying, “She deserved it.” Those statements are perhaps even more dangerous than the act itself. They reveal how deeply hatred has penetrated public thinking. Once society begins rationalizing violence against people because of their political beliefs, it starts walking a very dangerous road. Today it is a tattoo. Tomorrow it may be a T-shirt, a social media post, a tribe, a surname, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Political intolerance rarely arrives dramatically. It grows slowly; through jokes that normalize hatred, leaders who inflame emotions irresponsibly, online propaganda, selective outrage, and silence from good people.

Yes, silence from good people.

Kenya cannot afford to sleepwalk into another season of politically instigated violence.

The bitter truth is that ordinary citizens suffer together regardless of political affiliation.

When fuel prices rise, every Kenyan feels the pressure. When floods destroy homes, victims come from every political side. When unemployment rises, hunger does not ask who voted for who! National disasters do not discriminate between government supporters and opposition loyalists.

Lest we forget, we are one people-KENYA- before we are political camps.

Institutions tasked with protecting national unity therefore deserve stronger support. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) must be adequately funded and empowered to intensify civic education, peace campaigns, community dialogue, and early warning interventions ahead of 2027. Their work should not only emerge during crises or election periods. Cohesion must become a continuous national culture.

Religious leaders, musicians, civil society organizations, schools, and the media also carry a responsibility. In that responsibility they also need adequate support to broadcast national cohesion. Political disagreement should be taught as normal in a democracy, not as grounds for hostility. Young people especially must be protected from manipulation by leaders who weaponize anger for political gain.

Kenya was once proudly described as a God-fearing nation. That identity is tested not by how loudly we pray, but by how humanely we treat one another when we disagree. A society that burns homes because of politics cannot claim moral victory over those it condemns.

The approach to the 2027 elections must therefore become a season of maturity, not madness. Leaders across the political divide must speak responsibly, and any irresponsible utterances should be penalized. Supporters must reject provocation. Citizens must learn to separate political competition from personal hatred.

The lesson from 2007 is clear: it is far easier to ignite division than to heal it afterward.

No election is worth the blood of a Kenyan. No politician is worth destroying a neighbor over political indifference. No political symbol should ever become justification for violence.

Kenya must choose humanity before politics.

Because once hatred becomes normal, everybody eventually loses.

By Hon.Sammy Weya

It is becoming increasingly disturbing to witness the reckless and divisive political rhetoric being promoted by some leaders within Luo Nyanza at a time when unity, sobriety, and mature leadership are most needed.

Governors Gladys Wanga and Ochilo Ayacko must remember that their political rise and electoral success were significantly anchored on the support, influence, and leadership of the late Rt. Hon. Raila Odinga and the ODM movement. It is therefore unfortunate that instead of providing calm and unifying leadership during this delicate transition period, they are increasingly engaging in careless political attacks and disrespectful commentary directed at fellow senior leaders from the region.

The manner in which some of these statements have been made against respected leaders such as Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and Governor James Orengo lacks decorum, maturity, and political wisdom. These are nationally respected leaders who have served this country with distinction over many decades. Whether one agrees with them or not, they deserve respect because of their contribution to Kenya’s democratic struggle, governance, and public service.

What is even more disappointing is the growing perception that certain leaders are becoming overly excited by proximity to the current administration and possible political promises from the UDA government. This excitement should not blind them into undermining fellow ODM leaders or creating unnecessary divisions among our people.

At a moment when ODM supporters across the country are still trying to regain political direction and emotional stability following the loss of Raila Odinga’s active leadership presence, the last thing Luo Nyanza needs is internal hostility, chest-thumping, and public insults among leaders. Such behavior only weakens the unity that ODM has carefully built over many years.

Prof. Nyong’o and Governor Orengo have remained measured, restrained, and professional despite repeated provocations. Their conduct demonstrates political maturity and experience. Younger leaders should learn from that example instead of engaging in unnecessary political theatrics that risk damaging the cohesion of the region.

As a people, we have always been strongest when united under shared ideals of justice, equality, and collective progress as championed by ODM and Raila Odinga. Personal ambitions, political excitement, and short-term alignments should never come before the unity and dignity of our community.

If this careless politics continues unchecked, the consequences could be severe. We risk entering the next electoral dispensation divided, weakened, and directionless. History has shown that divided movements rarely succeed.

This is therefore a call for restraint, humility, mutual respect, and unity among all ODM leaders and supporters. The people expect leadership, not division. They expect wisdom, not recklessness. And above all, they expect leaders who can rise above personal interests for the greater good of the community and the nation.

Former M.P. Alego Usonga

By Billy Mijungu

It is welcome news that the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) has moved to end the monopoly of KPLC and others. The World Bank doesn’t like it.

Ironically, the very countries represented by the World Bank practise free market competition in their energy sectors. Competition in those economies has produced efficiency, innovation and excellence. Yet it is not good for Kenya.

The World Bank appears uncomfortable with alternatives to generate affordable electricity for the people. In places like Kenya, where development opportunities remain largely untapped, such positions can easily be interpreted as attempts to discourage local enterprise and maintain dependency instead of empowering communities.

Kenya has now cleared the path for independent power producers to directly sell electricity to large consumers, including industries, factories and commercial enterprises. Many industries left Kenya because of the high cost of electricity. Lower power costs will attract investment, create jobs and increase tax revenues that support development.

The State has published the Energy (Electricity Market, Bulk Supply and Access) Regulations, 2026, allowing producers without existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with Kenya Power to directly compete for large consumers. For the first time, businesses will be able to choose suppliers based on affordability, reliability and efficiency rather than being subjected to a single system without alternatives.

Power producers will still use the transmission infrastructure of KETRACO and Kenya Power through wheeling charges, meaning the existing utilities will continue earning revenue. However, EPRA must also allow alternative transmission mechanisms beyond State-owned systems if genuine market competition is to succeed.

The World Bank argues that competition could trigger higher electricity prices. That argument is difficult to understand because competition, in properly regulated markets, generally lowers prices, improves service delivery and forces efficiency.

For years, large consumers have paid disproportionately higher tariffs, effectively subsidising the broader electricity system while making Kenyan industries less competitive regionally and internationally. That model has hindered industrial growth and reduced Kenya’s manufacturing competitiveness.

Kenya Power recorded Ksh 219.26 billion in electricity revenue in 2025, figures expected to change once competition takes effect.

Kenya ignoring advice that would preserve inefficiency and high electricity costs deserves commendation. Affordable electricity should never be viewed as a threat. It is the foundation of industrialisation, employment creation, investment growth and economic freedom.

“Follow on Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn @BillyMijungu”
“#Forward #TusongeMbele #Change”