Senator Ledama defends Mara camp approval, backs lawful '7-star' projects

Narok Senator Ledama Olekina/X

Narok Senator Ledama Olekina has defended the approval of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Tented Camp, dismissing renewed activism around the project and insisting that lawful, environmentally compliant developments are welcome in the county.

In a statement posted on Friday morning, Olekina said the Maasai Mara was “not a staging ground for foreign activists or a playground for fundraising campaigns,” but rather “our home, our heritage, and our responsibility.”

The senator was responding to public debate surrounding a petition filed by an environmentalist challenging the approval process of the luxury camp.

According to Olekina, the petitioner later withdrew the case after being furnished with what he described as the relevant facts.

“He is satisfied, and no amount of activism can give that dead case new life. Case closed – we move on,” Olekina said, adding that Narok County remains open to serious international developers who respect Kenyan law and environmental safeguards. 

"Any serious international developer who respects our laws and our environment is welcome in Narok County, even to build a seven‑star hotel," he stated.

The dispute traces back to a case filed in August 2025 by Joel Meitamei Ole Dapash, who sued the Narok County Government, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), and three others.

Dapash challenged the legality and environmental compliance of the Ritz-Carlton Maasai Mara Tented Camp, arguing that the approval process lacked adequate transparency and public participation.

However, in recent developments, Dapash sought to discontinue the proceedings, indicating he no longer wished to pursue the matter.

That move was opposed by the developers of the camp, who argued that withdrawing the case would leave serious allegations unresolved and deny the company an opportunity to clear its name.

In a ruling, the Environment and Land Court declined to allow the withdrawal, holding that the case raised issues of public interest that could not simply be abandoned.

The court found that environmental governance, regulatory compliance and public participation were matters that went beyond the interests of the individual petitioner.

The decision means the case remains on record despite the petitioner’s attempt to exit the proceedings, a point that complicates claims that the matter has been fully settled.

The Maasai Mara, one of Kenya’s most important wildlife conservation areas and a major tourism draw, has increasingly found itself at the centre of debates pitting environmental protection against high-end tourism investment.

Several videos have circulated in recent months showing hotels perceived to be blocking wildebeest migration routes.

However, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has clarified that the developments in question meet the required approval and regulatory standards, adding that the projects were assessed and cleared in line with established conservation and environmental guidelines.