The Koko closure in Kenya has sparked debate across the business and policy landscape, with President William Ruto’s economic advisor David Ndii weighing in on the reasons behind the company’s exit. Koko Networks, a venture-backed technology firm that provided clean ethanol cooking solutions, shut down its Kenyan operations following a dispute with the government over carbon credits.
Koko had positioned itself as a key player in the clean energy space, offering alternative cooking fuel and appliances aimed at reducing reliance on charcoal and kerosene. Its model combined technology, distribution infrastructure, and carbon markets to scale affordable clean cooking for households. As a result, the Koko closure has raised concerns about energy access, jobs, and Kenya’s broader investment climate.
Responding to public concern, Ndii argued that the Koko closure cannot be reduced to a single cause. Instead, he described it as the result of multiple overlapping economic, regulatory, and global policy factors that eventually made the business unsustainable in Kenya.
David Ndii Explains the Koko Closure
According to Ndii, the Koko closure reflects a complex mix of international agreements, market dynamics, and domestic regulation. He pointed to the Paris Agreement, the credibility of cookstove carbon credits, and Kenya’s Nationally Determined Contributions as part of the broader context affecting the company’s operations.
Ndii also cited what he described as investor-unfriendly carbon market regulations and questions around the transparency of Koko’s business model. In his view, these factors, combined with diplomatic pressure and policy uncertainty, created an environment in which the company struggled to continue operating.
“Koko’s case is uniquely multidimensional,” Ndii said, listing global climate frameworks, local regulatory regimes, and carbon market governance as contributing issues. His remarks suggest that the Koko closure should be seen as a structural challenge rather than a simple policy failure.
Government Intervention and Ndii’s Response
The Koko closure prompted questions about whether the government could intervene to save the company, given its role in providing clean cooking solutions and employment opportunities. Koko had served thousands of households and supported jobs across its supply and distribution network.
When asked whether state intervention was still possible, Ndii offered a blunt response. “Too late. Even good doctors lose patients,” he said, signaling that the window for rescuing the business had already closed. The remark underscored his view that not all economic outcomes can be reversed, even with well-intentioned policy action.
His analogy framed the Koko closure as an unfortunate but sometimes unavoidable result of market realities. According to Ndii, governments can influence conditions, but they cannot always prevent business failures once critical thresholds are crossed.
Carbon Credits Dispute and Investor Protection
Reports indicate that the Koko closure followed a dispute with the Kenyan government over the sale of carbon credits, a key revenue stream for the company’s clean cooking model. Carbon credits generated from reduced emissions were central to Koko’s financial viability.
The Business Daily reported that Koko had reached an agreement with the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Under that arrangement, the state could be required to compensate investors if government actions interfered with the company’s operations.
This development adds another layer to the Koko closure, raising questions about Kenya’s obligations to foreign investors and the balance between regulation and investment protection. It also highlights the growing complexity of climate-linked businesses operating within evolving global and local policy frameworks.
Broader Implications of the Koko Closure
Beyond the immediate impact on consumers and employees, the Koko closure has reignited debate about Kenya’s readiness for climate-focused investment. Clean energy ventures often rely on carbon markets, regulatory clarity, and long-term policy consistency to succeed.
Ndii’s comments suggest that without clearer rules and greater transparency, similar ventures could face comparable challenges. As Kenya continues to position itself as a hub for green innovation, the lessons from the Koko closure are likely to influence future policy discussions.
While Ndii’s “good doctors” analogy may sound dismissive to some, it reflects a broader argument about economic realism. In his view, not every loss can be avoided, and understanding why businesses fail is as important as celebrating successes.
