Rivers Commission decries delay of clean-up exercise

Nairobi Rivers Commission (NRC) has now cited petitions filed in court over the regeneration project as a major hurdle and intentional delay, despite the fast-approaching timelines by which they are expected to have completed the works.

The NRC made the remarks when they met the National Committee on Environment, Forestry, and Mining, chaired by Mwala MP Vincent Musyoka, and insisted that they had had a clear explanation on issues being raised in the petition to no avail.

The committee, however, resolved to defer the consideration of a public petition on the implementation of the Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project after concerns were raised that the issues before Parliament are also the subject of active court proceedings.

The Committee had invited the Nairobi Rivers Commission (NRC), the Water Resources Authority (WRA), the National Land Commission (NLC) and officials from the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning to respond to a petition filed by residents of Kangemi and Dagoretti over the rehabilitation and beautification of the Nairobi Stream Basin.

The petitioners are seeking Parliament's intervention to suspend all activities affecting private land within Kangemi and the larger Dagoretti area until the project fully complies with the Constitution, environmental laws and existing court orders.

But the NRC, which was led by Chief Executive Brig (Rtd) Joseph Maina Muracia, raised concern over the slow progress of the project, especially at a time when reports have indicated that the country could soon face El Niño.

“We have been engaging them but the problem has been that element of the court case. We have gone to them but they have never been able to listen to anybody; then it becomes a problem. About things they want addressed, we have a clear explanation for all of them. They aim to delay the programme and this is our problem and we need to be guided here. We have a timeline to complete the project by January and that is the objective,” he told the committee.

At the same time, NRC Vice Chairperson Mumo Musuva said that matters riparian are critical and issues at hand are well defined in law, as far as public land.

"Even before we discuss the petitioners' issues, I would like the committee to just consider that the first point of entry will be on a position of public land. The law and the court itself have also been clear on that, that even as petitions are looked at, we are looking at public land, just for the committee to bear that in mind." 

Similarly, he told the committee that this is not just a matter of Kangemi and Dagoretti but a matter of huge public interest, regretting that the petition stands right at the heart of this initiative to save lives. 

"Over 40 per cent of diseases that are attributed downstream are due to the polluted rivers. This is a matter of huge public interest that continues to be exacerbated every day. The law must follow its course; we plead that you consider that public interest overrides private interest and health is one particular issue."

He said that Kenyans are now aware that the country is facing El Niño, which may cause dire consequences if the cleaning up of the rivers is not done as soon as possible.

“These are matters of huge public interest and if action is not taken with respect to riparian and reclaimed public land, we are also facing the high possibility of loss of lives in the coming weeks due to El Niño,” Musuva stated

Musyoka called for the need to expedite the process so that it does not take so long to solve, but took note of the court case and declared that they would give guidance on the way forward. 

“I am one of the people affected, my people downstream. We are highly affected by the pollution that is transferred from these rivers to River Athi. People have encroached on rivers everywhere; they do not want a clean-up exercise; they are emptying all the dirt into these rivers. All of us want a solution, but we must follow the law; we are a country that respects the rule of law.

Petitioners have been seeking assurances that the project remains within the legally demarcated riparian boundaries and that no demolitions, evictions or compulsory land acquisitions are undertaken without due process and prompt compensation.

Musyoka emphasised that Parliament's responsibility is to fairly hear all parties before determining whether the petitioners' grievances warranted intervention.

"As Parliament, we have an open mind. We want to understand where the case is. It is not our intention to suppress anyone or stop development, but to ensure that justice is served and to determine whether the petitioners have a case or not," he said.

The agencies before the committee had opted to make a consolidated presentation through the Nairobi Rivers Commission, reflecting a unified Government position on the project while allowing individual institutions to clarify issues falling within their respective mandates.

But officials from the Water Resources Authority objected when they informed the Committee that the issues contained in the petition were substantially similar to three active petitions currently before a specially constituted three-judge bench of the Environment and Land Court.

The matters are scheduled for hearing on July 15 and are subject to interim court orders.

The agencies sought the Committee's guidance on whether it would be appropriate to proceed with consideration of the petition while the case is before the courts.

Musyoka referred to Standing Order 89 on sub judice matters, explaining that Parliament must avoid deliberating on issues that could prejudice active court proceedings.

While the Committee had been informed of the pending litigation, he stated that it was necessary for the agencies citing sub judice to formally provide evidence before any determination could be made.

"The Standing Orders are very clear: whoever alleges that a matter is sub judice must provide evidence. Once we receive that evidence, the Committee will consider it and consult the Speaker, who will then guide us on whether to proceed with the petition or await the conclusion of the court process," the Chair ruled.

The meeting was adjourned with the Committee undertaking to review the submitted documentation, consult the Speaker and communicate the way forward to all affected parties before further consideration of the petition.