The reported abduction of South Sudanese businessman and whistleblower Gaddhaffy Athorbey Guiet Chuit from Nairobi has placed Kenya at the centre of the growing Crawford Capital scandal, which involves politically connected ownership, private control of government revenue systems and millions of dollars collected through public services.
Gaddhaffy had reportedly shared information with journalists, activists and investigators examining Crawford Capital, Capital Pay and other connected businesses operating inside South Sudan’s revenue collection systems.
He was taken in Nairobi in June 2026 after reportedly receiving warnings that his life was in danger, with accounts indicating that armed and masked men intercepted him while he was travelling in a taxi.
His family later reported that he had been transported from Kenya to South Sudan and detained at the Giyada military intelligence facility in Juba.
The abduction came as international scrutiny was increasing around Crawford Capital’s ownership, government contracts, profit-sharing arrangements and control over money collected through taxes, visas, permits, health certificates and oil-related services.
The whistleblower who knew too much
Gaddhaffy was described as a businessman with access to information about Crawford Capital’s contracts, ownership structure and role inside South Sudan’s digital revenue systems.
He had reportedly assisted journalists and researchers examining how Crawford-linked companies secured access to public payment systems and how money collected through those systems was distributed.
His information reportedly covered contracts involving electronic taxation, government permits, oil-sector payments, health certificates and other compulsory services.
The timing of his disappearance raised serious questions because it occurred while details about Crawford Capital and its politically connected shareholders were attracting increasing international attention.
No public evidence has directly connected Crawford Capital to the operation that removed Gaddhaffy from Nairobi.
However, the subjects he had been discussing before his disappearance were closely connected to the company, its contracts and the powerful interests surrounding its business in South Sudan.
Taken from Kenya and moved to Juba
Reports indicated that Gaddhaffy was removed from Nairobi by armed men and later appeared in detention in South Sudan.
The circumstances suggested an operation involving movement across borders without a publicly disclosed arrest warrant, court process or extradition hearing in Kenya.
There was no public record showing that Kenyan courts approved his removal or that he was formally handed over through established legal channels.
His reported detention at a military intelligence facility in Juba deepened concerns that the operation was linked to sensitive information involving government officials, security agencies and politically protected business interests.
The case also raised questions about how individuals operating in Nairobi were able to seize a foreign national and transport him out of the country.
Crawford Capital’s expanding revenue empire
Crawford Capital became deeply involved in South Sudan’s government payment systems through electronic taxation, business licensing, visas, import procedures, health certificates and oil-related permits.
Through Capital Pay and other connected platforms, the company reportedly processed payments made by businesses, travellers, humanitarian organisations, oil companies and other parties dealing with government departments.
Investigators said Crawford’s role went beyond building software because it also participated in the collection, handling and distribution of money generated through public services.
The company’s systems reportedly operated at important points where government revenue entered the system before being transferred into official accounts.
Questions emerged over how much money Crawford collected, how much it retained and how much was finally reflected in South Sudan’s national budget.
The 75 percent profit deal
One of the largest parts of the Crawford scandal involved a reported 2019 agreement that allowed the company to receive 75 percent of profits generated through some government services.
The South Sudanese government reportedly received the remaining 25 percent.
The money came from public services created and enforced by the state, including licences, permits, taxes and administrative charges.
Details surrounding the approval of the arrangement, the officials involved and the method used to calculate Crawford’s share have remained limited.
The contract became central to claims that a private company was receiving the larger portion of money generated through compulsory government payments.
Millions from oil permits and taxes
Investigators estimated that Crawford Capital earned more than $5 million every year from electronic tax collection systems.
The company was also reported to have earned as much as $11.5 million annually through oil-related permit fees.
Crawford reportedly processed permits and payments connected to oil extraction, exports and companies working inside South Sudan’s petroleum industry.
The company was also reported to have pursued involvement in the collection of international aircraft overflight fees, another revenue stream worth millions of dollars.
Its expansion placed Crawford-linked systems inside taxation, immigration, trade, health and petroleum operations.
The $10 million health payment
Crawford-linked companies also entered South Sudan’s health payment systems during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The company reportedly managed a programme requiring people to pay for Covid-19 testing certificates, with approximately $6 collected for every certificate processed through the system.
Questions later emerged over how many certificates were issued, how much money was collected and how the programme performed.
Crawford later received a contract connected to Ebola preparedness and was reportedly paid $10 million in advance in 2022.
The payment was substantial compared with South Sudan’s reported annual health spending.
Public information about the equipment supplied, services delivered, work completed and final accounting for the money has remained limited.
Politically connected shareholders
Garang Mayom Kuoc Malek was identified in public records and investigations as Crawford Capital’s majority shareholder.
He was reported to own approximately 68 percent of Crawford Capital, 95 percent of Crawford Laboratory and more than 60 percent of Capital Pay.
Kenyan businessman Jeremy Gisemba was identified as the company’s second-largest shareholder, reportedly holding 26 percent of Crawford Capital and more than 23 percent of Capital Pay.
Ruey Majok Guandong was reported to have owned 50 percent of Crawford Capital when the company was first incorporated before later ownership changes.
Garang Malek was identified as the son of a former deputy minister and parliamentarian, while Ruey Guandong was identified as the son of South Sudan’s ambassador to Türkiye.
Investigators also reported that Garang Malek and Ruey Guandong had previously formed another company with Mayar Salva Kiir, one of President Salva Kiir’s sons.
These connections became part of the scrutiny surrounding Crawford’s access to government contracts and its growing control over public revenue systems.
The Kenyan shareholder
Jeremy Gisemba’s reported stake placed a Kenyan businessman inside Crawford Capital’s operations in South Sudan.
He was identified as a major shareholder in both Crawford Capital and Capital Pay, companies linked to government taxes, oil permits, visas and other public payments.
Crawford also appeared in Kenyan court proceedings involving equipment and operations connected to oil depots in South Sudan.
Court records described Crawford as a service provider working with South Sudanese government institutions.
The Kenyan proceedings showed that Crawford’s operations extended beyond online payments and included activities connected to physical facilities inside South Sudan’s oil sector.
Attempts to suspend Crawford
In March 2026, South Sudan’s Minister of Trade and Industry, Atong Kuol Manyang Juuk, ordered Crawford Capital’s digital payment and electronic services suspended for 90 days.
The suspension was intended to allow an administrative and technical review of the company’s systems and its role in processing government revenue.
Vice President James Wani Igga later intervened and reversed the suspension, allowing Crawford’s operations to continue.
The trade minister was later removed from office.
The intervention became part of claims that Crawford enjoyed protection from senior government officials whenever its contracts and operations came under scrutiny.
Government officials defended the company
Senior South Sudanese officials publicly defended Crawford Capital after questions emerged about its contracts, revenue-sharing arrangements and control over public payment systems.
The company continued operating several government platforms while investigations examined how much money it collected and retained.
Government officials described the platforms as part of efforts to digitise services and reduce cash transactions.
Investigators continued to question whether government departments had full control over the transaction records, revenue data and payment infrastructure managed through Crawford-linked systems.
Missing revenue questions
A major part of the Crawford scandal concerns claims that money collected through its systems did not fully appear in South Sudan’s official budget.
Investigators identified gaps between revenue expected from government services and amounts reported through public accounts.
The lack of detailed transaction records made it difficult to determine how much Crawford collected across its different platforms.
Its profit shares, service charges and other deductions were not fully disclosed in publicly available government records.
The money involved came from businesses, oil companies, travellers, importers and organisations required to obtain government permits and approvals.
The abduction and the Crawford files
Gaddhaffy’s reported abduction transformed the Crawford Capital story from a financial scandal into a cross-border security case involving Kenya and South Sudan.
Before his disappearance, he had reportedly been sharing information about the company’s ownership, contracts and control of public revenue systems.
He was then taken from Nairobi and later reported to be inside a South Sudanese military intelligence facility.
No evidence publicly available has shown that Crawford Capital directly planned or carried out the abduction.
The case nevertheless remains closely connected to the Crawford scandal because the information Gaddhaffy was discussing concerned the company, its shareholders and its government business.
His disappearance also coincided with an intensification of questions surrounding the reported 75 percent profit arrangement, the millions collected through oil permits and taxes, the $10 million health payment, and the political protection surrounding Crawford’s operations.
The Kenyan connection now includes a Kenyan shareholder, Kenyan court records and the reported removal of a whistleblower from Nairobi before his detention in Juba.
