The High Court will on July 30 determine whether to temporarily stop any proposed developments in Upper Imenti Forest as it considers a constitutional challenge against the planned projects and amendments to the Forest Conservation and Management Act.
The ruling date was fixed after all parties filed their written submissions on an application seeking conservatory orders to bar any excision, allocation, licensing or development within the protected forest pending the hearing of the main petition.
In its submissions, the National Assembly asked the court to reject the application, arguing that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for the grant of conservatory orders.
According to the National Assembly, the petition is based on speculation rather than verifiable evidence, insisting that no government agency has approved or initiated any of the projects cited by the petitioners.
The National Assembly submitted that there is "no decision to excise, allocate, license or authorise any development within Upper Imenti Forest," adding that claims of a proposed airstrip, State Lodge, golf course and the Meru Bypass extension remain unsubstantiated.
It further argued that the petitioners had relied largely on newspaper reports and social media posts, which it described as hearsay with no evidentiary value.
It also defended the amendments to Section 56(2) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, saying the provision only allows easements for public roads and utilities and does not grant authority for the developments being challenged.
The National Assembly warned that issuing conservatory orders would interfere with Parliament's legislative role and could delay public infrastructure projects, arguing that such an outcome would not serve the public interest.
However, petitioner Francis Awino urged the court to grant the interim orders, maintaining that the threat facing the forest is genuine.
In a supplementary affidavit, Awino argued that the respondents had effectively acknowledged that government agencies were assessing proposals for an airstrip, State Lodge, golf course and the extension of the Meru Bypass Road near the forest.
He told the court that "the threat to the forest is real and not speculative," insisting that the respondents' own responses demonstrated the projects were under consideration.
Awino also faulted the public participation process conducted for the proposed Kithoka Airstrip, arguing that it excluded conservation groups, environmental experts and other critical stakeholders.
He further contended that members of the public were not provided with sufficient environmental and technical information to meaningfully participate before the projects were considered.
The petition ultimately seeks orders barring any excision, allocation, licensing or development within Upper Imenti Forest until the constitutional case challenging the projects and the legislative amendments is fully heard and determined.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google