Introduction

The Sports (Amendment) Bill, 2026 (the Bill) responds to persistent allegations of match-fixing in Kenya. It amends the Sports Act (the Act) to define the manipulation of a sports competition (the Offence), establish an investigative framework and prescribe criminal and disciplinary sanctions.

An overview of the Bill

• Clause 2 of the Bill amends Section 2 of the Act to define the Offence as any intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at improperly altering the result or course of a sports competition to remove its unpredictability, with a view to obtaining an undue advantage.
• Clause 3 of the Bill inserts Section 54A into the Act, under which suspected manipulation is investigated independently by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (the DCI) and the relevant Sports Organisation. A disciplinary sanction by the Sports Organisation does not bar a criminal investigation by the DCI.
• Clause 4 of the Bill inserts Section 64A into the Act which criminalises participating in, or aiding, manipulation. Conviction attracts a fine of up to three times the value involved or ten million shillings, whichever is higher, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. Sports Organisations may also impose disciplinary sanctions ranging from warnings to permanent bans and forfeiture of proceeds, and clubs may forfeit manipulated results.

Does the Bill address the problem it targets?

The Bill fills a real gap. Kenya has no offence aimed specifically at manipulating sports competitions. A dedicated offence gives clarity, deterrence and a clear mandate for the DCI and Sports Organisations.

Maurice Odumbe’s case shows the cost of this gap. In 2004, the former Kenya cricket captain was banned for five years after an inquiry found that he had received money from a bookmaker, yet no criminal prosecution followed. Under the Bill, the same conduct would also attract a DCI investigation.

Recent football cases confirm the pattern. In [suspicious link removed], the Sports Disputes Tribunal struck out an appeal by two players suspended by the Football Kenya Federation over match-fixing, holding that they must first exhaust the Federation’s Anti-Match Manipulation Regulations 2016. No criminal charges followed.

In March 2025, a whistle-blower’s hidden-camera video allegedly showed goalkeeper Patrick Matasi admitting to fixing matches for betting. He denied it, and the Federation suspended him. In [suspicious link removed], the High Court struck out his constitutional petition as premature, without deciding its merits, and directed the matter to the Federation’s internal process.

These cases ended in internal discipline, not prosecution, and the Federation’s powers stopped at its own members. The Bill’s dual-track process and interim suspensions correct this while preserving the right to be heard.

The Bill’s strengths are its definition, drawn from the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention), particularly, its independent criminal and disciplinary tracks, and a value-linked fine that can exceed the gains from fixing.

The Bill nonetheless has serious gaps. No body coordinates the two investigations, inviting duplication, inconsistent findings and prejudice to prosecutions. Betting operators need not report suspicious betting, participants need not report approaches, and whistleblowers are unprotected. Fixers outside sports bodies’ membership remain beyond reach, the role of international federations and the Sports Disputes Tribunal is unclear, and clubs face no criminal liability.

Comparative perspectives

• On coordination, the Macolin Convention requires each state to identify a national platform, a role Sport Integrity Australia has performed since 2020, the Bill has none.
• On betting, the Macolin Convention obliges operators to report irregular or suspicious betting, and the United Kingdom backs its cheating offence in Section 42 (Cheating) of the Gambling Act 2005 with the Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit.
• On penalties, New South Wales and New Zealand allow ten and seven years’ imprisonment, against the Bill’s five.
• On reporting and liability, South Africa’s Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 2004 criminalises corruption relating to sporting events, including taking a reward for not reporting it, and requires persons in authority to report corrupt activity. The Macolin Convention requires liability, including monetary sanctions, for clubs. The Bill imposes no reporting duties and, beyond forfeiture of match results, no corporate liability.

Conclusion

The Bill aims to preserve sport’s unpredictability, protect vulnerable athletes from criminal networks, safeguard the betting market and align Kenya with international standards. If passed, Federations will need to revise their rules and invest in integrity systems, while athletes and clubs face greater exposure.

The Bill represents welcome and overdue reform in sports, it would ensure that cases like those of Odumbe and Matasi no longer end with sporting sanctions alone. Parliament should, however, add the safeguards to ensure the effective implementation of the Bill if passed into law.