Court upholds NTSA ban on matatu graffiti and tints

Matatu with graffiti /FILE

The High Court has upheld the legality of a National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) directive requiring the removal of graffiti, artistic designs, and tinted windows from public service vehicles (PSVs).

The ruling dealt a major setback for operators championing Kenya’s Nganya culture.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye on Wednesday, the court dismissed a petition challenging the enforcement notice issued in May last year.

It instead ruled that it was constitutional, lawful and properly grounded in public safety considerations.

The petition had been filed by Michael Makubo, who sought to invalidate regulations and the NTSA enforcement notice that targeted decorated matatus.

He argued that the directive was unconstitutional, discriminatory and issued without adequate public participation.

Makubo also claimed that the move threatened the widely recognised Nganya culture, a form of urban expression characterised by elaborate graffiti, customised lighting, tinted windows, and enhanced sound systems in matatus.

However, the court found no merit in the claims.

“The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of his constitutional rights or the rights of the class he purports to represent,” Justice Mwamuye stated in his determination.

The court held that the impugned regulations were lawfully enacted following public participation and parliamentary scrutiny.

At the heart of the ruling was the court’s finding that the limitations imposed on artistic expression through vehicle modifications were reasonable and justifiable under Article 24 of the constitution, which allows restriction of rights in the interest of public safety.

“The limitations they impose on constitutional rights are reasonable and justifiable under Article 24 for the compelling public interest of road safety,” the judge said.

The court heard that the NTSA notice required all PSVs with graffiti, tinted windows, or other artistic modifications to remove them immediately or face enforcement action.

The authority defended the directive as an administrative measure aimed at improving visibility, enhancing passenger safety and standardising public transport operations.

Justice Mwamuye agreed, describing the notice as a lawful administrative reminder of existing legal obligations.

“The NTSA notice is a lawful administrative reminder of existing legal obligations and does not violate the right to fair administrative action or any legitimate expectation,” he ruled.

The court also rejected arguments that the enforcement actions were discriminatory or improperly targeted at matatu operators associated with the Nganya culture.

It held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any constitutional breach arising from the enforcement measures.

Moreover, the judge said while the petition was brought in good faith as a public interest matter aimed at protecting what the petitioner described as artistic and cultural expression, it could not override clear statutory mandates governing road safety and transport regulation.

“Having found the impugned regulations are constitutional, the NTSA notice is lawful and enforcement actions are authorised by law, the court finds the petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief sought,” he ruled.

Shortly after delivery of the main judgment, the counsel for the petitioner orally requested a 14-day window to file and pursue an appeal, together with interim preservation of the status quo.

The State, however, opposed the request, arguing that the court was functus officio, having already rendered its final determination and could not revisit or suspend its orders.

In a brief ruling, Justice Bahati Mwamuye acknowledged the competing positions but held that the interests of orderly transition, regulatory compliance, and the right to access the appellate process warranted a limited accommodation.

“Having considered the matter and persuaded by the arguments by counsel for the petitioner for an orderly transition, regulatory compliance and or appeal, this court does reinstate for a limited period only the substance of orders one and two only,” the judge said.

The court clarified that the temporary reinstatement applied to the dismissed petition orders and not the substantive findings on legality already pronounced in the judgment.

The interim relief is time-bound.

The reinstated orders took effect immediately but will automatically lapse at the end of the day on May 17, unless stayed by a higher court.