Sakaja protests release of 14 suspects linked to Eastleigh collapsed building

Audio By Vocalize

Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja has protested the release of suspects linked to the collapsed building in Eastleigh.

While pushing for the county to have prosecutorial powers, Sakaja demanded answers from Kamukunji Police on how the suspects were arrested in June but released on Sh50,000 bail without being charged in court.

Sakaja in statement posted on his X account (formerly Twitter) said City Hall had taken enforcement action against those involved after establishing change of user from a residential property to a commercial had been approved.

According to Sakaja, architectural plans required to authorise construction had not been approved.

The Governor said County officers arrested the suspects and handed them over to Kamukunji Police Station because county governments no longer hold prosecutorial powers they previously held.

“We enforced the law and arrested those involved. However, because we do not have prosecutorial powers, the suspects were handed over to Kamukunji Police Station. They were reportedly released on a cash bail of Sh50,000 without being taken to court,” Sakaja said.

“We want the police to explain why the suspects were released without being presented in court and why construction was allowed to continue. These are serious questions that must be answered,” he added.

A police occurrence book entry from Kamukunji Police Station indicates that 14 suspects were booked into custody on June 17, 2026, over the alleged offences relating to contravention of city planning laws.

Enforcement action and arrests were made severally by the county officials and most recently in July after failing to comply with the enforcement order below. However the suspects were released on a 50k bail at Kamukunji police on the very same day. Prosecution of the same was also denied. We have repeatedly asked for the resumption of the power to prosecute such violations of such county and county related laws after this was taken away from County governments in 2024 (one such letter to the office of the DPP is attached). Meanwhile, several such cases have either been rejected by prosecutors (who are independent of the County), dismissed by the justice system or have had minimal fines imposed. Fining a developer 50k for an illegal development with hundreds of millions without orders to stop and remove the offensive development is completely unreasonable. I raised this in the Senate a fortnight ago and we shall keep pushing for a review of this position. All of these instances, where enforcement action has been curtailed, blocked or interfered with, will be published to the public.

— Sakaja Arthur Johnson (@SakajaJohnson) October 25, 2026

The entry, recorded under OB No. 98/17/06/2026, names the suspects and states that they were booked by Nairobi City County officers before being placed in police cells.

A separate Kenya Police Service record indicates that 10 suspects were subsequently released on a cash bail of Sh50,000.

The entry, recorded at 9.44pm, states that the release was carried out on the instructions of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), identified in the record as C.I. Onyapidi, through Corporal Awadh.

The record references receipt number 2039434 and states that the suspects left the station without complaints.

However, the documents do not, on their own, establish the specific charges against the suspects, the legal basis for the bail arrangement or whether they were subsequently presented in court.

The discrepancy between the 14 suspects recorded as booked into custody and the 10 named in the release entry also raises questions about the subsequent status of the other suspects.

Sakaja said a June 2025 enforcement notice adds another dimension to the questions surrounding the property and the enforcement of planning regulations.

The notice, issued by Nairobi City County over alleged construction works undertaken without the required development permission, cited the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019, and county by-laws.

It directed the recipient to stop the works and remove the development described as illegal, warning that the County could undertake the required action and recover the costs if the directives were not followed.

The notice also provided for an appeal to the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee.

Sakaja clarified that approval to change a property’s use from private to commercial-cum-residential does not amount to approval of architectural plans authorising construction.

He said the County approved the change of use but did not approve the architectural plans, yet construction proceeded.

I have seen some people peddling a fake approval document alleging that the Eastleigh development was approved. It is telling that this is the same document that the Eastleigh developer used to get NCA approval. They allege that the development was approved in January of 2024. This is not true. The application for development as shown below was made in November of 2024, it could not have been approved in February of the same year. Also, there is a difference between a change of user approval and a development approval. The developer applied for change of use from residential to residential & commercial in August of 2024. Change of user was approved in October of 2024. Development approval has never been granted. The developer went on to build with impunity and without building approvals despite enforcement action by the county and arrests. — Sakaja Arthur Johnson (@SakajaJohnson) October 25, 2026

“If the building had been approved for construction, I would have named the officers who approved it so that action could be taken against them,” he said.

Sakaja, in his argument, said the current arrangement creates a gap between enforcement and prosecution, leaving counties dependent on other agencies after taking action against alleged offenders.

Under his proposal, appropriately authorised county prosecutors would be able to pursue qualifying county offences through the courts, subject to the law and the constitutional authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He said county prosecutors previously had a better understanding of technical offences involving planning, construction and other county regulations, enabling them to handle such cases more directly.

“We want to be able not only to enforce regulations and make arrests, but also to take offenders to court and prosecute them. When counties had prosecutorial powers, we had prosecutors who understood the nature and seriousness of county offences and could ensure that appropriate legal action was taken,” he said.