The Environment and Land Court has suspended a public participation exercise slated for July 8, which was meant to give residents a chance to voice their views on the excision of a section of the protected Imenti Forest for development of a State lodge.
The project also includes a golf course and an airstrip.
Petitioners, drawn from the Imenti Development Forum, are opposing the plans on grounds that the 24-hour notice given for the exercise was unreasonable and insufficient.
On Wednesday, however, the public participation forum called by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) went ahead despite the court order. An attempt by Lawyer Elizabeth Gitari, who is also the chairperson of East African Wildlife Society, to serve the orders on KFS deputy chief conservator of Forests Clement Ng'oriareng' failed after she was denied audience.
Imenti North MP Rahim Dawood.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
"The public participation forum has proceeded against an active court order. Though they have refused to be served, we will serve them anyhow. What has happened is a mockery to public participation as enshrined in the Constitution. The public was not given an opportunity to give their input and we have not been served with any documents and designs to comment on," Ms Gitari said.
An earlier court order had already stopped the planned construction pending determination of the case challenging the proposed developments.
The petitioners allege that the government convened the forum at the eleventh hour, a move they say was calculated to create the appearance of constitutional compliance while rendering the pending court case useless.
"That in the meantime, and taking into account that there are orders of the court stopping/staying the commencement of the impugned project [namely, the State Lodge, the Airstrip, and the Golf Course], the actions complained of cannot be allowed to proceed," the court said.
'Unreasonable and insufficient' notice
Five residents, led by lawyer Mugambi Imanyara, moved to court after the Kenya Forest Service published and circulated a notice inviting members of the public to a participation forum, along with an environmental and social impact assessment, scheduled for July 8.
The petitioners said the 24-hour notice was unreasonable and insufficient to allow residents of Meru County and other affected stakeholders to receive information, prepare adequately, and meaningfully participate in the forum, contrary to the constitutional principles governing public participation.
"That the respondents' decision to convene the forum on such short notice, despite having full knowledge of the pending petition and the notice of motion seeking conservatory orders, is calculated to create the appearance of constitutional compliance while undermining and rendering moot the substratum of the pending proceedings," the petition stated.
The petitioners further stated that the notices and letters of invitation were materially inconsistent regarding the venue of the proposed forum. According to Mr Imanyara, while the public notice indicated that the meeting would be held at the Meru ASK Showground pavilion, the invitation letters indicated it would take place at Meru National Polytechnic — creating uncertainty and confusion over the actual venue.
The letters, he added, also assert that the proposed project site has already been found suitable, demonstrating that the public participation exercise is a mere formality rather than a genuine consultative process.
"My understanding is that such predetermined conclusions demonstrate that the respondents have already formed conclusions regarding the suitability and environmental impact of the project before obtaining public views, thereby undermining the purpose and integrity of the proposed public participation exercise," Mr Imanyara said.
He further said the public notice and invitation letters refer only to the proposed construction of the airstrip and are silent on the golf course, the State lodge, and other associated developments.
The lawyer said the effect of limiting the consultation to the airstrip alone is to deny the public an opportunity to consider and express informed views on the cumulative environmental, ecological, and constitutional implications of the entire scope of developments planned within the protected forest.
