The High Court will deliver its judgment on February 9, 2026, in a case testing the legality of National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) regulations that restrict graffiti and other artistic modifications on matatus.
This decision follows the close of final submissions before Justice Bahati Mwamuye, with petitioners insisting the rules were enacted without meaningful public participation and the State defending them as lawful and necessary for road safety.
Petitioners told the court that the public was never formally invited to submit memoranda and that key information was not provided in Kiswahili, undermining broad engagement. They said no minutes, attendance records or summaries of public views were produced to show that affected communities, operators, artists and passengers were consulted.
“The totality of what we are saying is that there was no public participation. The cardinal duty lies with Parliament and NTSA,” counsel submitted, arguing that the process cannot be retrofitted after regulations are already in force.
ALSO READ:
NG-CDF rolls out skills scholarships for 100 youth in Kajiado North
They further questioned the safety rationale, saying there is no audit or data demonstrating that matatus with graffiti face higher accident risk. The petitioners invoked Article 47 on fair administrative action and legitimate expectation, pointing to a past moratorium by former President Uhuru Kenyatta against arrests and prosecutions over graffiti and to President William Ruto’s public recognition of nganya cultural expression. In their view, abrupt enforcement without a transition period disregards both due process and the cultural economy that has grown around matatu art.
NTSA, through lawyer Mary Kihaba, urgued that the regulations were constitutionally passed, first published in 2014 and later amended, and that the 2024 enforcement notice aligns with the NTSA Act and broader statutory requirements.
Kihaba said the measures aim to enhance visibility and safety, not impose a blanket ban on creativity, and argued that the petitioners have not met the threshold for the orders they seek. “The enforcement notice of 2024 cannot be said to be unconstitutional,” she submitted, adding that legal instruments enjoy a presumption of validity and urging the court to uphold the 2014 framework.
By Masaki Enock
