By Andrew Kariuki
A constitutional petition challenging the legality of the Naivasha–Kisumu Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Phase 2B project has been filed at the High Court in Nairobi, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over alleged violations of constitutional rights, public finance laws and procurement procedures.
The case, filed under a certificate of urgency by Collins Matasi before the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, names Kenya Railways Corporation Managing Director Philip Mainga as the 1st respondent, with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Land Commission and the Ministry of Roads and Transport listed as interested parties.
The petition raises concerns over the planning, procurement, financing and implementation of the railway project, particularly along the Suswa Railway Corridor and in areas such as Kerarapon in Ngong, where the petitioner alleges communities have been unlawfully displaced without due process or compensation.
Matasi argues that construction activities have already commenced in some areas and, unless the court intervenes urgently, the ongoing works could result in irreversible harm, including destruction of homes and significant financial loss to the State.
Through the application, the petitioner is seeking orders to stop further construction and financing of the SGR Phase 2B project until full legal compliance is demonstrated, as well as disclosure of documents relating to compensation, affected persons and the processes followed under constitutional requirements.
He also wants the National Land Commission to oversee resettlement processes and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate the conduct of officials involved in the project.
In his supporting affidavit, Matasi states that the project involves hundreds of billions of shillings in public borrowing, yet key documents including loan agreements, procurement records and feasibility studies have not been made public.
He further claims that no Resettlement Action Plan has been disclosed despite ongoing evictions, arguing that the actions violate constitutional provisions on property rights, fair administrative action, environmental protection and accountability in public finance.
The matter is scheduled for hearing of the application on March 19, 2026, where the court will determine whether to grant interim orders as the case proceeds
