The Departmental Committee on Environment, Forestry, and Mining chaired by Hon. Vincent Musyoka (Mwala) has deferred consideration of a public petition on the implementation of the Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project after concerns were raised that the issues before Parliament are also the subject of active court proceedings.

The Committee, had invited the Nairobi Rivers Commission (NRC), the Water Resources Authority (WRA), the National Land Commission (NLC) and officials from the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning to respond to a petition filed by residents of Kangemi and Dagoretti over the rehabilitation and beautification of the Nairobi Stream Basin.

The petitioners are seeking Parliament's intervention to suspend all activities affecting private land within Kangemi and the larger Dagoretti area until the project fully complies with the Constitution, environmental laws and existing court orders.

They are also seeking assurances that the project remains within the legally demarcated riparian boundaries and that no demolitions, evictions or compulsory land acquisitions are undertaken without due process and prompt compensation.

Hon. Musyoka emphasized that Parliament's responsibility is to fairly hear all parties before determining whether the petitioners' grievances warranted intervention.

"As Parliament, we have an open mind. We want to understand where the case is,” he said

“It is not our intention to suppress anyone or stop development, but to ensure that justice is served and to determine whether the petitioners have a case or not," he added.

The invited agencies opted to make a consolidated presentation through the Nairobi Rivers Commission, reflecting what they described as a unified Government position on the project while allowing individual institutions to clarify issues falling within their respective mandates.

However, before substantive deliberations, officials from the Water Resources Authority raised a procedural objection, informing the Committee that the issues contained in the petition were substantially similar to three active petitions currently before a specially constituted three-judge bench of the Environment and Land Court. They noted that the matters are scheduled for hearing on 15 July 2026 and are subject to interim court orders.

The agencies requested the Committee's guidance on whether it would be procedurally appropriate to proceed with consideration of the petition while the cases remain before the courts.

The chair of the committee cited Standing Order 89 on sub judice matters, explaining that Parliament must avoid deliberating on issues that could prejudice active court proceedings. He observed that while the Committee had been informed of the pending litigation, it was necessary for the agencies alleging sub judice to formally provide evidence before any determination could be made.

"The Standing Orders are very clear, whoever alleges that a matter is sub judice must provide evidence,” he said.

“Once we receive that evidence, the Committee will consider it and consult the Speaker, who will then guide us on whether to proceed with the petition or await the conclusion of the court process," the Chair ruled.

Committee Members supported the approach, stressing that Parliament must uphold both the rule of law and its constitutional duty to represent the interests of citizens.

The meeting was adjourned with the Committee undertaking to review the submitted documentation, consult the Speaker and communicate the way forward to all affected parties before further consideration of the petition.