Pressure continues to mount on Mombasa Governor Abdulswamad Nassir over a decision by his administration to fell trees in green spaces in the county, ostensibly for safety reasons.
Despite this explanation, environmental activists have vehemently opposed the move, saying it negates the efforts to ensure 15 billion trees are planted by 2032, a directive by President William Ruto.
Environmentalists dismissed the explanation as hogwash, saying the trees felled at the famous and historic Uhuru Garden were all healthy and have threatened legal action against the county government and some of the county officers.
“We will ensure we file a case in court seeking both individual culpability on the officers who committed the act of ecocide but also justice for Kenya, the bats and the ecosystem,” Phyllis Omido, the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA) executive officer said on Monday.
She said biodiversity loss actioned by punitive actions of county officers affect all citizens’ rights.
“Those culpable must be brought to book. A state employee doesn’t wield power to override constitutional rights,” Omido said.
Politicians have now joined the fray, questioning the real intention of the county.
Nominated Senator Miraj Abdillahi on Sunday criticised the decision by the county, saying it is environmentally wrong and smacks of a hidden agenda, especially because there was no public participation.
She said every sector was given a specific number of trees they are to plant and felling them does not augur well for the environment.
“How come today you go and fell trees, some of which have historical importance, and you tell us they are a risk to public safety? When we passed the 2010 constitution, didn’t we say we should be involved as the public in every major decision affecting us?” Senator Abdillahi posed.
The county conservator said the law was not followed in the felling of the trees at Uhuru Garden, according to Abdillahi.
She said trees are not only for aesthetic value but also for environmental and economic benefits including carbon credits.
CJGEA said the county violated the procedural environmental rights as recognised under the Kenyan constitution.
CJGEA’s Omido said environmental governance must include access to environmental information and public participation in environmental decision-making.
She said the county most likely has some sinister plans with the trees and questioned where the woods that were seen being carried away were taken.
“Articles 42, 69 and 70 of the constitution ensure environmental rights for citizens. The Mombasa county is in breach of the law and in most cases, when decisions that cannot be substantiated by any feasibility studies or expert reports are made, they often are cover ups for corruption,” Omido said.
The environmental activist said no permits were issued by the Kenya Forest Service to allow the felling of 19 trees that had been targeted.
Two huge trees were felled at Uhuru Garden.
Omido said the environmental damage caused must be restored.
Mombasa County Commissioner Mohammed Noor said the matter will need deep discussion as his office appeared to have been caught by surprise by the action.
“On trees, we will discuss. The two levels of government will talk,” Noor said during Madaraka Day celebrations at Uwanja wa Mbuzi in Mombasa on Sunday.
The county, on May 30, justified the removal of trees from Uhuru Garden, Forest Road, Railways Garden, and Pirates Beach, claiming the action was driven by safety concerns following a rapid assessment conducted after heavy rainfall warnings.
The county, in a statement by the department of water, natural resources and climate change resilience, said several trees were identified as "aged or weakened" and therefore posed a public hazard.
The department said the operation was guided by a resolution passed by the county disaster management committee on May 8, 2025.
While acknowledging that some trees served as habitats for bats and other species, the county maintained the trimming and removal decisions were made cautiously and in line with its duty to protect the public.
However, conservationists are not convinced.
“This is not a disaster risk management. It’s ecological destruction disguised as stewardship,” Paula Kahumbu, a leading environmental voice, said in a statement on Friday.
“Photo evidence clearly shows young, thriving trees were cut down. This calls into question the credibility of the county’s entire assessment process.”
Kahumbu and a coalition of environmental groups are now demanding an independent forensic ecological audit of all tree removals carried out by the county in 2025.
