A human rights defender now wants Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to lift the directive for the closure of all wines and spirit outlets operating next to public service terminus and stages in the city.
In the alternative, Charles Mugane wants the governor to withdraw the word "all" from the directive.
In a demand letter addressed to Sakaja and head of County Public Service Patrick Akivaga, through Mugane Law LLP, he demands that the same be done within 48 hours from the date of the letter.
"In the circumstances, our instructions are to demand from you as we hereby do, the immediate and unconditional admission of liability together with the lifting of the impugned order/directive and its exemption of "all" the compliant businesses within 48 hours from the date of this letter," the letter dated March 4, reads in part.
The county boss risks being sued at the High Court's Constitutional and Human Rights Division, if he fails to adhere to the demands within the given period.
Sakaja issued the directive on February 23, during a meeting at Charter Hall, ordering that the businesses above be closed within seven days.
Subsequently, through a memo dated February, Akivaga informed all chief officers and directors under the Office of the County Secretary of the commencement of the implementation of the order.
He also appointed the security and compliance sector to enforce the same.
Aggrieved by the decision, Mugane issued the aforementioned demand arguing that the directive is illegal for disregarding the established constitutional principles of fairness, rationality, justice, public participation and legitimate expectation.
He further stated that it expressly targeted compliant businesses licensed in accordance with the law by among them the relevant departments of the City County, the Liqour Licensing Board.
He said the implementation of the directive has led to the closure of many compliant businesses operating in the city where no gazetted PSV terminus exists.
He also said that PSV operators are not a special interest group where the said directive would have been necessary.
These include schools or rehabilitation centres.
The human rights defender claimed that the directive has been actuated by reasons other than those fronted.
"Our client, you ought to be aware, cannot in good conscience sit and watch as you continue to mutilate the fundamental tenets of our democracy voiced by our Constitution, mutilation which has now spiralled out of control and which cannot be countenanced any further," the demand letter reads in part.
