Journalist Tony Gachoka and Mount Kenya Jurist have recently filed a legal challenge against the proposed lease of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to Indian conglomerate Adani Group. Their case is the latest in a series of legal actions taken to prevent the lease agreement, which involves a 30-year concession for the management and operation of the airport.
This legal battle follows an earlier case filed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Kenya, which sought to halt the plans on grounds of governance and financial propriety. Orders were issued by Justice John Chigiti to suspend the alienation of the airport, and a hearing date was set for further deliberations.
Gachoka and Mount Kenya Jurist argue that the process leading up to the proposed lease has been fraught with legal and procedural violations. Their legal challenge, represented by advocate Ndegwa Njiru, contends that the entire deal is marred by illegalities, including a lack of mandatory public participation.
The duo claims that the lease agreement with Adani Group has not undergone the necessary public consultation, despite its impact on a strategic national asset. They argue that the government’s failure to adhere to legal requirements undermines the principles of good governance and responsible management of public resources.
In their court papers, Njiru accuses key officials—Adani Group, Managing Director Henry Ogoye, Kenya Ports Authority, CS Treasury John Mbadi, CS Transport Davis Chirchir, and the Attorney General—of preparing to sign a concealed concession agreement with the Adani Group. He describes the deal as a “dubious guarded private-public partnership” that has been kept from public scrutiny.
The petitioners have requested the court to issue orders stopping the signing of any agreement related to the alienation of JKIA and the implementation of the proposed concession. They also seek an order for the Chief Justice to constitute a panel of judges to address the weighty legal issues raised in the petition.
According to the court documents, Adani Group has already conducted a feasibility study for the 30-year acquisition of the airport. However, Gachoka and Mount Kenya Jurist criticize the state for allegedly breaching constitutional and statutory requirements. They argue that the government has ignored provisions outlined in the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Act and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act, which are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in public asset management.
Gachoka emphasizes that Section 3 of the PPP Act does not envisage a situation where the government could alienate an existing project in favor of a private entity without following due process. He asserts that the government has failed to apply the law correctly, potentially compromising accountability and transparency.
“The application of the PPP Act and the PPAD Act must be distinct,” Gachoka’s documents argue. “The government should not apply these laws interchangeably to facilitate dubious transactions.”
Ndegwa Njiru further reinforces that the PPP Act should govern projects involving private investors, while the PPAD Act should oversee the disposal of public assets. He stresses that the two acts must not be used interchangeably to justify the questionable lease of JKIA.
The legal challenges against the JKIA lease deal underscore a broader concern about governance and the management of national assets. As the courts deliberate on these petitions, the future of the airport and the broader implications for public-private partnerships in Kenya hang in the balance.
