By MyEngineers
Climate and environmental campaigners in Kenya have rejected Aliko Dangote’s proposed $70 billion (Sh2.2 trillion) oil refinery in Lamu, warning that the project would damage the coastal region’s fragile ecosystem and lock the country into a fading fossil fuel economy.
The refinery, expected to take up to three years to build, is billed to supply refined petroleum products to Kenya and neighbouring East African countries, cutting the region’s reliance on imported fuel. County leadership and sections of the local public back the plan, citing jobs and direct economic benefits for Lamu.
But campaigners say the promises don’t add up.
Mohammed Adow of Powershift Africa called the project “an extraordinary act of environmental recklessness and economic short-sightedness,” arguing it ignores where the global economy is headed.
“The proposal for an oil refinery in Lamu also represents a breathtaking failure to recognise where the global economy is heading. At the very moment when Africa is experiencing an unprecedented clean energy boom, some still want to anchor the continent’s future to an industry facing mounting economic uncertainty,” Adow said.
He warned Kenya risks sinking money into “yesterday’s economy” just as global transport shifts from oil to electricity.
“The danger is not simply that the refinery will pollute; it is that it will become obsolete long before it has paid for itself,” he said.
“Too often, communities have instead inherited pollution, environmental degradation, and economic benefits that fall well short of the original promises. The environmental risks remain local while the financial rewards frequently do not. Lamu should not become another entry on that list.”
Greenpeace Africa raised similar concerns, saying the refinery threatens Lamu’s ecosystem while deepening Kenya’s fossil fuel dependence.
“The promise of ‘thousands of jobs’ cannot be used to hide the true cost of this investment. Large fossil fuel projects often create temporary jobs while undermining existing livelihoods in fishing, tourism and small-scale local economies,” said Sherelee Odayar, Oil and Gas Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa.
She said funds earmarked for the refinery should instead go into scaling up Kenya’s renewable energy sector — solar, wind, geothermal, storage and expanded energy access.
“No approvals should move forward without a full, independent environmental and social impact assessment, genuine public participation, and transparent scrutiny of the long-term economic, health and ecological risks,” Odayar added.
Muturi Kamau, National Network Coordinator at the Kenya Oil and Gas Working Group, pointed to the risk of oil spills from tankers, pipelines, storage facilities and refinery operations in a region whose economy leans heavily on fishing.
“Even a single major spill could have devastating consequences for the region’s fragile marine ecosystem. Oil contamination can smother mangrove forests, damage coral reefs and seagrass beds, and destroy critical breeding and nursery grounds for fish, crustaceans, and other marine species that sustain artisanal fisheries,” Kamau said.
Khelef Khalifa, a board member of Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI), faulted the lack of public consultation ahead of the announcement.
“We agree the project might be good but how do we know if we aren’t involved? We’re just hearing such big announcements through the media. This caught us by surprise and it’s wrong. The public needs to be fully involved. We want to know what is in the contract,” Khalifa said.
“Let there be transparency. We want all the plans to be laid bare so that people discuss the pros and cons of the project. If the project will be found to bring environmental concerns, then it should be opposed forthwith. But those risks and benefits can only be identified if thorough public participation is undertaken,” he added.