A recent People Daily story about community opposition to KenGen’s Sh150 billion wind power project in Marsabit raised important issues — land rights, local exclusion, and cultural misrepresentation.
But despite a strong headline — “KenGen’s Ksh150B wind power project runs into headwinds” — the July 22 article by John Otini missed the bigger picture and journalism basics.
Here, we break down the story’s gaps — and show how earlier coverage by Capital FM and Business Daily did better.
Four things people Daily got wrong or left out
1. One-sided story
People Daily relied entirely on statements from professionals representing local communities. While their grievances — about project naming, location, consultation, and land — were clearly outlined, the story failed to include KenGen’s response or show any attempt to contact them. This left readers with a one-sided narrative lacking journalistic balance.
2. No project scope or background
Despite mentioning the Sh150 billion price tag, the article said nothing about the size of the wind farm, its expected electricity output, or its place in Kenya’s energy strategy. Without this context, readers don’t understand what’s at stake — or why the project matters beyond the local dispute.
3. No expert or independent view
The article did not include any expert voice to explain whether the community concerns are legally grounded. What procedures must KenGen follow? How have similar projects been handled in the past? Without expert input, the story was full of claims but low on clarity.
4. Missed opportunities for data or visuals
With debates around turbine locations, transport routes, and office sites, a simple map or infographic would have added great value. The lack of visuals made the story harder to follow and less informative.
Capital FM did better
Two days earlier, Capital FM’s story — “KenGen’s wind power project in Marsabit faces opposition” — did a few things better. The July 20 article by Phidel Kizito showed more balance, context, and clarity.
- Balanced tone: The article opened by acknowledging that the local professionals also saw the potential benefits of the project. That set a fairer and more constructive frame.
- Project naming context: It connected the community’s objection to KenGen’s previous naming practices — such as Olkaria and Ngong — helping readers understand that the complaint wasn’t random.
- Greater clarity: Although the article still lacked KenGen’s voice, it read more neutrally and was slightly more informative.
Business Daily did best
Back in December 2023, Business Daily published a fuller story on the same wind project. Titled “KenGen to build mega wind power plant”, the article by John Mutua provided essential details on the project’s technical scope, capacity, and purpose — everything People Daily left out or failed to update:
- Capacity: An initial 200 megawatts, with planned expansion to 800 MW.
- Timeline: Construction expected to begin in 2026.
- Policy link: The project supports Kenya’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2030.
- Financing: Backed by the French development agency AFD.
This context would have dramatically improved People Daily’s story. It would have helped readers understand what the project involves, how it fits into national goals, and why it matters beyond local concerns.
Still, with their various strengths, none of the three stories were complete. For more solid journalism on national projects like this:
- Include KenGen’s voice. Or at least show effort to reach them.
- Add legal and land experts. Especially when community land rights are a key issue.
- Use maps and visuals. They make location-based concerns clearer.
- Provide timelines and potential benefits. Readers will learn better what’s planned, when, and for whom.
So, People Daily deserves credit for highlighting community concerns in Marsabit. But it missed the opportunity to give readers a full, balanced picture. The story of Marsabit’s next wind project isn’t just about conflict. It’s about power, progress, and public trust.
