News30 June 2026 - 12:35

State to court: Proposed Meru airstrip key to forest conservation

They also argue that official government records do not recognise the existence of a forest in Meru County known as “Imenti Forest”.

by JAMES GICHIGI

Audio By Vocalize

The government has opposed attempts to halt alleged development activities in Meru Forest, arguing before the Environment and Land Court that the proposed construction of an airstrip would support rather than undermine forest conservation efforts.

In court filings, the Office of the Attorney General (AG), the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forestry, and the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) asked the court to dismiss an application seeking conservatory orders, saying the petition lacks factual and legal basis.

The petition was filed by Francis Awino, who is challenging alleged plans affecting forest land in Meru and questioning the constitutionality of provisions introduced through the 2025 amendment to Section 56(2) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act.

Awino argues that recent reports and public statements have raised concerns that portions of the forest could be earmarked for infrastructure and development projects, potentially threatening environmental protection and public land safeguards.

According to the petition, the amendments weakened legal protections for public forests by allowing roads, utilities, pipelines, and related infrastructure under a less restrictive framework.

The petitioner further contends that the alleged actions violate constitutional guarantees on environmental protection, public participation, fair administrative action, and management of public land.

However, the government dismissed the claims and told the court there was no basis for issuing conservatory orders.

In the grounds of opposition, the AG, the Environment Ministry, and KFS argued that the public interest in ensuring forests in Meru County are managed, conserved, and protected effectively outweighs the request to suspend implementation of the proposed airstrip.

According to the filings, delaying the commencement of the proposed airstrip risks undermining government conservation efforts within the forest ecosystem.

“Conservatory orders, being discretionary in nature, are not the most efficacious relief to grant… as any delay in commencing the construction of the proposed airstrip is likely to jeopardise the government’s conservation efforts of Meru Forest,” they state.

The agencies also challenged the evidentiary basis of the petition, arguing that apart from citing constitutional provisions and relying on newspaper and magazine reports, the petitioner had not demonstrated any constitutional violation or actual injury.

The government further argued that no evidence had been presented to show that any authority had approved construction of an airstrip, golf course, State Lodge, bypass, roads, or related developments within the area referred to in the petition.

“That the petitioner has not annexed any evidence to support the allegations that any of the respondents or any person acting under their authority has excised, alienated, allocated, licensed, granted any easements or wayleaves, special licence for the construction of an airstrip, golf course, State Lodge, bypass, utilities, roads or any related development on any part of “Imenti Forest,” their documents further add.

They also argue that official government records do not recognise the existence of a forest in Meru County known as “Imenti Forest”.

According to the filings, the allegations are based largely on social media posts and media reports, which the State argues do not amount to admissible evidence.

The Environment Ministry and KFS further told the court that projects mentioned in the petition, including the proposed airstrip, golf course, and State Lodge, remain draft proposals, and no official communication had been received concerning implementation within any forest in Meru.

The agencies maintained that once planning and design processes are completed, all relevant institutions would undertake their statutory responsibilities to ensure compliance with environmental and constitutional requirements.

The government also stated that the proposed Meru bypass project remains under consideration through established legal procedures and would not encroach on forest land.

At least three orders have been issued in related cases preserving the status quo of the forest and halting proposed excision and development activities pending further directions.