High Court to determine legality of graffiti on matatus

This follows the conclusion of final submissions by parties in the case before Justice Bahati Mwamuye.

The case was brought by petitioners who challenged the regulations banning graffiti on matatus, arguing that there was no public participation in their formulation.

Lawyers representing the petitioners said the public was never notified to submit memoranda and that information was not provided in Kiswahili, limiting meaningful engagements.

“The totality of what we are saying is that there was no public participation. The cardinal duty lies with Parliament and NTSA,” the petitioners’ lawyers submitted. They also noted that no evidence has been presented showing public consultation, including minutes of attendance or records of public views.

The petitioners questioned the basis for the regulations, arguing that there was **no audit or data showing that matatus with graffiti pose a higher risk of accidents.

They invoked Article 47 of the Constitution on legitimate expectation, highlighting that former President Uhuru Kenyatta had issued a moratorium banning arrests and prosecution over graffiti. 

They also referenced President William Ruto’s recognition of Nganya cultural expression during a recent celebration, arguing that cultural expressions should be respected.

“Regulations cannot be enacted first and public participation sought afterward,” the petitioners stressed.

In response, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) argued that the laws were constitutionally passed and that the 2024 enforcement notice aligns with the Constitution and the NTSA Act.

NTSA lawyer Mary Kihabasaid the regulations were intended to enhance road safety and are not inconsistent with former President Kenyatta’s actions regarding graffiti.

On the legality of the regulations, Kihaba submitted that the petitioners had not met the threshold for the orders they sought. 

“The enforcement notice of 2024 cannot be said to be unconstitutional,” she argued. She added that there is a presumption in law favouring the validity of legal instruments and asked the court to dismiss the petition while upholding the 2014 regulations.