Loading News Article...
We're loading the full news article for you. This includes the article content, images, author information, and related articles.
We're loading the full news article for you. This includes the article content, images, author information, and related articles.
The dispute over an alleged Ksh19 million debt to comedian Sammy Kioko escalates, drawing in media personality Oga Obinna and raising questions about county procurement and payment ethics.

MACHAKOS, KENYA – The Machakos County government has formally demanded that media personality Oga Obinna provide documentary evidence supporting comedian Sammy Kioko’s claim of an unpaid Ksh19 million debt. The demand, issued in a letter dated Tuesday, November 12, 2025, follows an emotional interview on Obinna’s YouTube channel where Kioko detailed his financial distress allegedly caused by the county’s failure to pay for services rendered nearly two years ago.
The county solicitor’s letter accuses the “Obinna Show Live” of publishing and disseminating “false, malicious and skewed” information. This move marks a significant escalation in a public dispute that has cast a spotlight on the contractual obligations of county governments and the plight of suppliers.
The controversy ignited in late October 2025 when Kioko began publicly protesting, including camping outside Governor Wavinya Ndeti’s offices, alleging non-payment for a tender to supply county uniforms. In a widely circulated interview with Oga Obinna on Monday, November 10, 2025, a visibly distressed Kioko stated the financial strain had forced him to close his tailoring business and sell his car to fund his sister's urgent medical treatment in India.
Machakos County has offered conflicting responses to the allegations. Initially, the administration, through its Department of Finance, categorically denied any contractual relationship with the comedian, dismissing his claims as “unfounded and politically driven” and a “calculated scheme aimed at discrediting Her Excellency the Governor.” A statement from Finance Executive Catherine Mutanu on November 2, 2025, asserted that no record of a Local Purchase Order (LPO), delivery note, or invoice involving Kioko existed.
However, in a subsequent press briefing on Monday, November 4, 2025, the county’s Head of Procurement, Joseph Mathuki, acknowledged that a tender for uniforms was awarded to a registered business entity. Mathuki clarified that payment was delayed due to an initial incomplete delivery but confirmed the order was fulfilled in the 2023/2024 financial year and that the payment process was now underway. Crucially, Mathuki argued that Kioko has “no legal authority” to speak on the matter as his name does not appear on the company’s official registration (CR12).
Kioko has since refuted the county's evolving position. In a social media post, he stated, “The county has now confirmed a tender was awarded and performed fully, contrary to an initial statement that there is no documentation regarding any such tender.” He explained that he jointly financed the project with his sister and urged the county to pay the invoiced company.
The dispute has resonated with the Kenyan public, sparking widespread debate on the challenges faced by creatives and small business owners when dealing with government entities. The hashtag #PayKioko has gained traction, with many commentators calling for accountability from Governor Ndeti’s administration.
The saga has also drawn in other high-profile figures. Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko, speaking on Obinna’s show via phone on November 11, 2025, pledged to mediate the dispute. Sonko suggested a meeting with Kioko and Governor Ndeti to find an amicable solution, speculating that payment delays could be due to funding shortfalls from the national treasury. During the live show, a fundraiser initiated by Obinna raised over Ksh221,000 from the public to assist with Kioko's sister's medical bills.
As Machakos County demands proof from Obinna, the focus shifts to the validity of the documents Kioko claims to possess. The case now sits at a critical juncture, testing the transparency of county procurement processes against a backdrop of a viral social media campaign for justice. The outcome will likely have significant implications for how supplier disputes with county governments are handled in the future.