Rigathi Gachagua Sparks Outrage: Why Build Malls in Dubai Instead of North Eastern If You Must Steal?

That question usually comes up as a critique of power, inequality, and incentives, not as a literal endorsement of theft.

Read plainly, it asks why wealth—especially illicit or questionable wealth—ends up invested far from marginalized regions.

There are several structural reasons people point to when discussing this pattern:

First, return on investment and liquidity mattered.

Areas like Eastleigh, Lavington, and global cities such as Dubai already had strong demand, higher land values, better infrastructure, and faster turnover, which made property easier to rent, sell, or leverage financially.

Second, infrastructure and state presence differed sharply.

North Eastern Kenya historically lacked roads, utilities, financial services, and large consumer markets, which reduced profitability and increased risk for large real estate projects.

Third, security and perception played a role.

Investors—legitimate or otherwise—often avoided regions viewed as politically or security-sensitive, preferring locations where assets faced fewer disruptions and drew less scrutiny.

Fourth, visibility and status mattered.

High-end developments in capital cities or international hubs functioned as symbols of success and influence, while investments in neglected regions attracted less prestige and fewer political returns.

Fifth, weak regional development policies compounded the gap.

Limited incentives, inconsistent planning, and historical marginalization meant capital rarely flowed back into North Eastern at scale, regardless of the source of funds.

At its core, the question highlights systemic inequality, not geography alone: money followed power, infrastructure, safety, and opportunity—leaving already-excluded regions further behind