Ex-ministers’ order queried in Mau Forest evictees’ case
A woman carries firewood as children play at Olmekenyu IDP camp on June 28, 2022 where families evicted from Mau Forest have been living for the last three years.
What you need to know:
- The Environment and Lands Court in Nakuru has been invited to determine the legality of the gazette notice number 889 of 2001.
- Government claims the decision to evict the families was informed by the need to recover the forest land which they said had been encroached by the families.
The legality of a directive by two former Cabinet ministers to degazette 35,000 hectares of land from the Eastern Mau Forest for human settlement is the subject of controversy in the battle for compensation by families evicted from the forest land in 2017.
The Environment and Lands Court in Nakuru has been invited to determine the legality of the gazette notice number 889 of 2001 and the legal notice number 142 of 2001 that communicated the intention to degazette and alter the boundaries at the Eastern Mau Forest in order to degazette 35,000 ha of forest land.
The gazette notice number 889 was issued by then Environment Minister, the late Francis Nyenze, on January 30, 2001 while his successor, Noah Katana Ngala, published the legal notice no 142 of 2001 in August 2001.
In the ensuing court battle, the families claim they were illegally evicted from the land which they claim was not part of the forest and want to be compensated.
On the other hand, the government claims the decision to evict the families was informed by the need to recover the forest land which they said had been encroached by the families.
Submitting before the court, the families through lawyer Benhard Kipkoech Ng’etich urged the court to issue a declaration that the decision by the police to forcibly evict his clients by burning their homes and destroying their properties violated their rights enshrined in the articles 10,26,29 and 40 of the Constitution.
According to Mr Ng’etich, his clients were illegally evicted from their private lands which they held legal titles to prove ownership.
He called upon the court to revisit the gazette notices of 2001 that gave rise to the degazettement of 35,000 hectares for settlement of the squatters.
Mr Ng’etich argued that since the demarcation there has been no other legal notice to revoke the decision by the ministers.
“If the gazettement was illegal why has the government not taken steps to de-gazette it? Why have those ministers who issued the legal notices not been taken to court?” asked Mr Ng’etich.
Appearing before Justice John Mutungi, Mr Ng’etich argued that the excised land gave rise to six blocks of settlement schemes in Njoro, Molo and Kuresoi constituencies that bordered the eastern part of Mau Forest.
He, however, regretted that the eviction of his clients was politically motivated, noting that the government has never indicated the correct boundaries for the forest and settlement schemes.
“We are pleading with the court to settle the matter and provide guidance on the boundaries. From history every president that has served appears to have their boundaries. Is it possible that the boundaries are shifting? We cannot have four cutlines?” said Mr Ngetich.
Mr Steve Biko, also representing the families, argued that the state has not filed any case to challenge the legality of the 2,043 titles held by the families that can prove ownership of the land.
Mr Biko noted that the government has never refunded the money it received from the families to process the title deeds and neither has it instituted any legal process to repossess the land.
“There is a procedure that the government ought to have taken before seeking to recover the land. My clients lost usage of the land during that period and could not develop nor charge the land to get banks,” said Mr Biko.
In its defense, however, the state through counsel Veronica Shirika insisted the government was interested in conserving the environment by recovering the land destroyed by human activities.
Ms Shirika argued that the process of degazettement of the forest land was done illegally which means the acquisition processes that followed were also illegal including the title deed.
She said some of the title deeds produced in court were issued before the alleged degazettement.
“The Constitution does not protect the rights of property acquired illegally, ” said Ms Shirika.
The court will issue a notice for judgement in due course.
