They were filed at the High Court in Nairobi by the Center for Litigation Trust, Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui, and Levi Munyeri, seeking to halt implementation of the system over alleged privacy intrusion.
The fresh petitions have raised privacy issues linked to the extensive use of surveillance cameras to detect violations. They have also questioned NTSA’s decision to use a commercial bank to collect the fines instead of the Judiciary.
“The Instant Fines Management System is surveillance-heavy, automated in nature but has not been aligned with the Data Protection Act, 2019, which regulates the processing of data to protect individuals' privacy. This may thus constitute a compromise or a violation of a motorist’s right to privacy as enshrined in Article 31 of the Constitution,” says the Centre for Litigation Trust (CLT).
The petitions target the NTSA, the Cabinet Secretaries for Roads and Interior, the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General.
“This petition aims to halt what is described as oppressive automated traffic enforcement, underscoring the supremacy of the Constitution and protection against executive overreach,” said Mr Munyeri in his petition.
On Tuesday, motorist Kennedy Mutwiri moved to court, raising similar concerns about the system’s legality and its impact on motorists’ constitutional rights.
All the petitioners argue that while technology may improve enforcement efficiency, it must operate within clear legal safeguards protecting personal data and privacy.
In its court filings, CLT states that surveillance initiatives require a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework to ensure citizens’ privacy rights are not violated.
If allowed to proceed unchecked, the petitioners warn that the system could undermine constitutional safeguards and the rule of law in traffic enforcement.
They also argue that the automated platform unlawfully penalises motorists without judicial oversight and undermines basic legal safeguards guaranteed under the Constitution.
“The system automatically cross-checks vehicles' number plates against the NTSA's database and every digital driving licence which creates a digital trail of an individual's location and time of travel, which may potentially infringe on an individual's right to privacy,” says the CLT organisation.
According to the petition, the system relies on surveillance cameras installed on roads to automatically detect traffic offences such as speeding and instantly send SMS notifications to vehicle owners.
Court papers state that the system requires motorists to settle the fines within seven days after receiving the notification. Motorists who fail to pay within the seven-day period face restrictions on government services.
In the petition, the group says it has moved to court to protect constitutional rights and public interest. It further argues that the automated enforcement system creates a presumption of guilt against motorists before a court determines liability.
“More importantly, sentencing is a judicial function that requires consideration of mitigating factors and the individual circumstances of each case. The Instant Fines Management System eliminates judicial discretion in sentencing,” says the group.
According to the petitions, traffic offences in Kenya are criminal matters that should be adjudicated through the judicial process.
They claim the system bypasses courts and effectively allows the executive arm of government to impose penalties without judicial oversight.
For its part, Sheria Mtaani wants the court to declare unconstitutional the directive requiring motorists to pay automated traffic fines into a commercial bank account instead of official Judiciary accounts. It argues this undermines transparency, accountability and safeguards governing public funds.
The group also seeks a declaration that the instant, automated imposition of traffic penalties through an algorithmic system violates motorists’ rights to fair administrative action and fair hearing because the penalties are issued before drivers are given an opportunity to be heard.
further wants the court to quash the automated enforcement framework and bar authorities from issuing or enforcing algorithm-generated traffic penalties until the system complies with constitutional safeguards, prosecutorial oversight and statutory notification requirements.
For Munyeri, he says the automated system is unconstitutional, unlawful and procedurally flawed because it was introduced without legal regulations, public participation or safeguards protecting motorists’ rights.
He wants the High Court to declare the system null and void, suspend its implementation and quash the March 9, 2026 public notice that operationalised the automated fines regime.
The petitioners claim the system was introduced without adequate public participation and that citizens were not sufficiently consulted before the automated enforcement framework was implemented.
“There has been no sufficient and meaningful public participation to incorporate public views,” the petitioner says.
The petitioners asked the court to rule that the implementation of the automated fines regime without meaningful public participation is unconstitutional.
