Petitioners Move to Suspend Privatization Act, Claim It Threatens Kenya’s Sovereignty

A case has been filed in the High Court challenging the newly enacted Privatization Act, 2025, with petitioners seeking to suspend its implementation, arguing that it is unconstitutional and threatens national sovereignty over key public assets

In their application, Omar Faruk Maalim and Abdulhakim Dahir Sheikh requested the court to certify the matter as urgent and issue conservatory orders preventing the National Assembly, the Attorney General, and the Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Economic Planning from operationalizing the Act

The petitioners contend that although the Act received presidential assent on October 15, 2025, and came into force on November 4, 2025, it was enacted without meaningful public participation, violating Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution

They note that while the National Assembly issued a public notice on August 7, 2025, inviting memoranda on the Bill, no submissions were received from ordinary citizens

The petitioners also claim the Assembly did not effectively use social media to reach a wider audience

Only four organizations ICPAK, PwC, KEPSA, and the Law Society of Kenya submitted feedback, and the alleged public participation forums in the 47 counties lacked proof of attendance, proper procedures, or minutes of deliberations

The petitioners argue this falls short of the constitutional requirement for meaningful public engagement

Beyond procedural issues, the petitioners warn that the Act grants excessive powers to the Cabinet Secretary for the Treasury, undermining parliamentary oversight. Section 21(1) allows the Cabinet Secretary to identify and determine which public entities are to be privatized, effectively excluding public input and sidelining Parliament’s role

 Also read  :  Over 300 Cyclists Gear Up for 2025 Road Cycling Africa Championships in Diani

They caution that privatizing critical infrastructure such as water, energy, ports, transport, and telecommunications could place essential national assets in the hands of private entities driven by profit rather than public welfare

The petitioners further argue that privatization may lead to private monopolies, undervaluation of assets, reduced state capacity, and permanent losses in government revenue needed for public services

Additionally, they claim the Act threatens socio-economic rights enshrined in Article 43 of the Constitution, including the rights to health, education, housing, and sanitation, as privatization could make essential services unaffordable for vulnerable citizens

Writer : Mweru Mbugua