Activist seeks to block creation of Transport agency

Institute of Social Accountability Chairperson Wanjiru Gikonyo. [Photo: Courtesy]

A civil society activist has gone to court seeking to quash the creation of the Nairobi Metropolitan Transport Authority (Namata) by President Uhuru Kenyatta.

Wanjiru Gikonyo, the national co-ordinator for The Institute for Social Accountability, wants the High Court to declare Namata unconstitutional as the agency usurps the powers of the county government.

In a case filed on Wednesday, Ms Gikonyo argued that the creation of the agency is a ploy by the national government to claw back on devolution by unconstitutionally assigning the authority functions meant for the counties.

Represented by lawyers from Katiba Institute, Gikonyo listed the Attorney General and Transport and Infrastructure Cabinet Secretary James Macharia.

Governors Mike Sonko (Nairobi), Joseph ole Lenku (Kajiado), Ferdinand Waititu (Kiambu), Alfred Mutua (Machakos) and Mwangi wa Iria (Murang’a) were listed as interested parties.

“Namata, as created, has a deleterious implication on devolution and the functioning of county governments. It is another effort by the national government to illegally and irregularly re-centralise governance contrary to the provisions of the Constitution,” read the court papers.

Recent appointment

The activist wants the court to declare the agency unconstitutional and also declare the recent appointment of Mary Waithiegeni Chege, Zacharia Karenge Mungai and Ronald Ndirangu Ndegwa as Namata board members unlawful.

On October 21, 2014, the Transport and Infrastructure CS signed a memorandum of understanding with governors of Nairobi, Kajiado, Kiambu, Murang’a and Machakos seeking to establish the authority, which is expected to remove the capital’s traffic gridlock and unlock its vast economic potential.

Although the Constitution provides that the national and county governments can set up joint entities or authorities through which they can jointly discharge some of their functions and jointly deliver services, the activist argues the right procedure was not followed in setting up the agency.

She cites the Intergovernmental Relations Act 2012 that requires certain mandatory steps prior to transfer or delegation of powers, functions or competencies.

“One of those conditions is that the two governments must agree in writing. There must also be service standards for the transferred function. The act includes public participation as one of the mandatory steps to be followed when negotiating an intergovernmental agreement,” she said.

The petition claims there was no written agreement between the two levels of government to form Namata. A written agreement is required by Section 26 of the Intergovernmental Relations Act 2011 and Section 6(5) of the Urban Areas and Cities Act 2011.