Can We Really Trust Our Legal Frameworks?
In any functioning democracy, laws are meant to guide, regulate, and protect. They provide a sense of order and justice, ensuring that all players—big or small—are held accountable. But what happens when these laws, though written in ink, lose their power to enact real change? In Kenya, the gap between law and enforcement is all too real, leaving many questioning whether our legal frameworks can truly be trusted.
NEMA and the Environmental Dilemma
The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) was established with the mandate to regulate and protect Kenya’s natural resources. Yet, despite its legal authority, we have witnessed numerous cases where NEMA’s orders are blatantly ignored. A case in point is the infamous Lamu coal plant, where despite public outcry and environmental warnings, the project seemed poised to move ahead, undermining NEMA’s environmental impact assessments. It took sustained legal battles, media attention, and civic activism to stall the project, proving that without public pressure, even Kenya’s primary environmental body can be rendered ineffective.
Similarly, we see issues like the Solai Dam tragedy, where despite previous warnings about the dam’s safety, nothing was done until disaster struck. Over 40 lives were lost, and even with legal frameworks in place, those responsible evaded accountability for far too long. The question then becomes, is it enough to have laws if there’s no will or power to enforce them?
Court Orders Defied: The BATUK Case
The BATUK (British Army Training Unit Kenya) scandal is another example of how even court rulings can be brushed aside. In 2021, a fire caused by military exercises damaged thousands of acres in Lolldaiga Hills Conservancy, and a court order was issued for BATUK to restore the environmental damage. However, it’s reported that NEMA was blocked from assessing the situation, and BATUK’s accountability has been elusive.
Court orders, like laws, are only as powerful as their enforcement. When rulings are ignored with impunity, it weakens public trust in the justice system. The BATUK case is emblematic of a larger problem where those with influence—whether military or corporate—can disregard the law with few consequences. It raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of Kenya’s legal frameworks.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Accountability
The underlying issue in all these examples is not a lack of laws but a lack of enforcement. Kenya’s legal frameworks are robust on paper, but when institutions meant to uphold them are undermined, the entire system begins to crumble. So, what’s the solution?
For one, there needs to be greater political will to support the enforcement of legal mandates. Institutions like NEMA and the courts must be empowered, both in terms of resources and authority, to ensure that no one is above the law. Secondly, public pressure plays a crucial role in holding institutions accountable. As seen in the Lamu coal plant case, civic activism and media scrutiny can force compliance where legal orders fall short.
Finally, penalties for defying legal orders need to be severe enough to deter defiance. When those in power realize that the cost of ignoring the law is higher than compliance, only then will we see true adherence to Kenya’s legal frameworks.
Conclusion
The tales of toothless laws in Kenya are numerous, and the examples are glaring. From NEMA’s challenges in enforcing environmental protection to court orders being ignored, the reality is that our legal frameworks, while strong in theory, often fail in practice. But the future is not hopeless. By empowering institutions, increasing accountability, and ensuring that defiance has real consequences, we can restore trust in our legal systems.
The question we must continue to ask is: if the law is to be respected, can we afford for it to remain toothless?