Attorney General argues inter-governmental collaboration is lawful as residents press petition over public participation
By David Kimani
The National Youth Service yesterday opposed a petition before the High Court seeking to have its KSh2.1 billion road maintenance agreement with the Nakuru County Government declared unconstitutional, arguing the deal was a lawful inter-governmental arrangement that disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the service.
NYS, through the office of the Attorney General, filed a Preliminary Objection asking the court to dismiss the petition with costs, saying the engagement with the county government constituted a lawful inter-governmental collaboration. The objection marks a significant escalation in a legal dispute that has paralysed one of Nakuru Governor Susan Kihika’s flagship infrastructure programmes.
The challenge was brought by four Nakuru residents — Simon Nasieku, Benson Macharia, Kepha Omuyoma and Paul Muchiri — who filed two related petitions before Judge Julius Nangea, challenging the deal on grounds of lack of public participation. The four want the court to stop the county government from approving or making any payments to NYS.
NYS signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nakuru County Government on November 7, 2025, for the execution of the KSh2.1 billion road deal, including the maintenance of all feeder roads under the Imarisha Barabara programme. The programme was designed to upgrade low-volume tarmac and gravel roads across various wards in the county.
The deal ran into legal trouble almost immediately after it was signed. The High Court suspended the agreement after the county failed to defend itself in the initial hearing, with Judge Nangea ruling that the conservatory order would remain in force until the petition is determined.
The petitioners told the court that the deal was shrouded in secrecy and violated constitutional principles of transparency, accountability and prudent use of public resources. They also pointed out that the Nakuru County Assembly, through a letter dated November 13, called for the halting of the implementation of the MoU.
In addition to the court proceedings, Nasieku and Macharia wrote to Controller of Budget Margaret Nyakang’o to stop any payment request from the Nakuru County Government emanating from the MoU. They argued the arrangement would disrupt planned development activities captured in the county’s Annual Development Plan and approved estimates for 2025.
The petitioners submitted that the MoU went against Article 10 of the Constitution because it was not subjected to public participation, a requirement that has increasingly become central to legal challenges against county government decisions across Kenya.
Critics say that bypassing procurement rules undermines accountability, while supporters of the deal argue that the involvement of NYS could expedite implementation. The case has drawn attention beyond Nakuru, touching on the broader and largely unsettled question of whether counties can assign public works directly to national government agencies without open competitive tendering.
The Attorney General’s Preliminary Objection will be tested against those arguments when the matter returns to court. For Kihika, the stakes are considerable. The Imarisha Barabara programme has been central to her administration’s infrastructure narrative, and its suspension has left a visible gap in a county where road conditions remain a persistent voter concern.
With Kenya’s general election now less than twelve months away and public works scrutiny intensifying, the outcome of the Nakuru road case will carry weight well beyond the courtroom.
Similar Posts by The Mt Kenya Times:
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER September 29, 2026
- Kenya’s ageing crisis: Act now or pay later
- Leaders rally round Karua after father’s death
- Lamu residents: Compensate us first
- Who owns the Lamu refinery? Nyoro demands answers as groundbreaking looms
About the Author
