Pressure mounts on Gov't over alleged plan to relax fuel quality standards

Mtetezi, a grassroots economic justice movement, has accused the government of considering the relaxation of fuel quality standards—specifically permitting higher-sulphur fuel—under the justification of preventing supply shortages. The group warns that such a move would pose serious risks to public health, undermine regulatory frameworks, and erode public trust.

In a statement released by Francis Awino, the organization pointed to what it described as glaring inconsistencies in the government’s recent actions. It cited events between March 20 and 25, 2026, when a fuel consignment imported outside the Government-to-Government (G2G) framework was rejected for failing to meet sulphur content standards.

The incident led to the dismissal of senior officials in the energy sector and reassurances from Energy Cabinet Secretary that the country had sufficient fuel reserves under the G2G arrangement.

However, Mtetezi now questions why, barely weeks later, the government appears to be considering allowing fuel with similar characteristics into the market.

“This contradiction is not only confusing but unacceptable and potentially illegal,” the statement reads, adding that the apparent policy reversal raises concerns about transparency and accountability within key institutions.

The group has directed a series of questions to both and Trade Cabinet Secretary , demanding clarity on the shift in policy direction.

Among the issues raised are whether the earlier rejection of high-sulphur fuel was justified, what has changed to warrant reconsideration of similar imports, and whether Parliament and the public were misled about the country’s fuel sufficiency.

Mtetezi also questioned the rationale behind the dismissal of senior officials during the March incident, suggesting that if substandard fuel is now being reconsidered, it casts doubt on whether the initial crackdown was based on quality concerns or other underlying interests.

Further, the group called for transparency regarding whether the current proposal involves the same consignment previously rejected or a different shipment with comparable non-compliant features.

Describing the situation as a “dangerous reversal,” the organization alleged the possibility of grand corruption and warned of far-reaching consequences, including increased consumer costs and damage to institutional credibility.

The movement has issued a 72-hour ultimatum to the two Cabinet Secretaries to provide clear answers, failing which it says it will mobilize nationwide protests demanding their resignation.