The High Court has validated the constitutionality of a National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) order mandating the elimination of graffiti, artistic decorations, and window tints from public service vehicles (PSVs).
This decision represented a significant blow to supporters preserving Kenya’s Nganya cultural movement.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye delivered the verdict on Wednesday, rejecting a lawsuit that contested the enforcement directive issued twelve months prior.
Instead, the court affirmed the measures were constitutional, legitimate, and appropriately based on safety concerns for the public.
Michael Makubo had initiated the legal challenge, seeking to nullify both the regulations and the NTSA enforcement notice specifically aimed at decorated matatus.
He contended the directive violated constitutional principles, was discriminatory, and implemented without sufficient public consultation.
Makubo further asserted the regulation endangered the established Nganya culture, an urban art form featuring extensive graffiti, specialized lighting, tinted windows, and amplified audio systems in matatus.
Nevertheless, the court determined these claims lacked validity.
“The applicant has not proven any infringement of his constitutional rights or those of the group he claims to represent,” Justice Mwamuye declared in his conclusion.
The court determined the challenged regulations were properly established through public input and parliamentary review.
Central to the decision was the court’s determination that restrictions on artistic expression via vehicle alterations were acceptable and justified under constitutional Article 24, which permits rights limitation for public safety reasons.
“The limitations they place on constitutional rights are reasonable and justifiable under Article 24 for the pressing public interest of road safety,” the judge explained.
The court learned the NTSA directive demanded all PSVs displaying graffiti, tinted windows, or other aesthetic alterations to remove them promptly or face penalties.
The authority justified the order as an administrative action intended to improve visibility, boost passenger security, and normalize public transportation functions.
Justice Mwamuye concurred, characterizing the notice as a proper administrative reminder of existing legal duties.
“The NTSA notification constitutes a legitimate administrative reminder of existing legal responsibilities and does not infringe upon the right to fair administrative treatment or any reasonable expectation,” he concluded.
The court also dismissed contentions that enforcement measures were biased or specifically targeted at matatu operators connected to the Nganya culture.
It determined the applicant had not proven any constitutional violation resulting from the enforcement actions.
Additionally, the judge acknowledged although the lawsuit was filed with genuine intentions as a public interest case designed to protect what the applicant described as artistic and cultural expression, it could not supersede explicit statutory requirements governing road safety and transportation control.
“Having determined the challenged regulations are constitutional, the NTSA directive is legal and enforcement actions are sanctioned by law, the court finds the applicant is not eligible for any requested relief,” he ruled.
Immediately following the main judgment announcement, the petitioner’s counsel verbally requested a 14-day period to submit and pursue an appeal, with temporary preservation of current conditions.
The Government, however, objected to the request, claiming the court’s authority had concluded after rendering its final decision and could not reconsider or suspend its rulings.
In a brief supplementary decision, Justice Bahati Mwamuye recognized the opposing viewpoints but maintained that considerations of smooth transition, regulatory adherence, and the right to appellate procedures justified limited accommodation.
“Having reviewed the matter and convinced by the petitioner’s counsel arguments for a smooth transition, regulatory compliance and/or appeal, this court does restore for a limited duration only the core elements of orders one and two only,” the judge stated.
The court clarified the temporary restoration applied to the dismissed petition orders, not the substantive determinations on legality already expressed in the judgment.
The temporary measures have a time limit.
The restored orders became effective immediately but will automatically expire at day’s end on May 17, unless halted by a higher judicial body.