Court to rule on graffiti ban on matatus

The High Court is set to determine whether regulations enforced by the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) banning graffiti on Public Service Vehicles violate constitutional rights.

This follows a fiercely contested hearing on Wednesday, January 21.

The case, stemming from a 2025 petition by art enthusiast and matatu user Michael Makubo William, challenges the NTSA’s enforcement notice requiring PSVs with graffiti, artistic designs, customised lighting, or tinted windows to remove the features or face penalties including being grounded and deregistered.

Makubo through his lawyer Outa Mwalela, argued that the NTSA’s 2014 regulations and the subsequent enforcement are fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.

The lawyer contended that the regulations were enacted without “substantive and meaningful” public participation.

He said that no notice was given to the public to submit views before the regulations were passed, and crucially, no information was provided in Kiswahili, Kenya’s national language.

“Nobody was given notice of anything,” he argued.

He dismissed an NTSA-provided notice from 2024 as a post-hoc attempt to “pull a fast one,” coming a full decade after the regulations took effect.

Mwalela further said that the regulations were never laid before the National Assembly within the seven-day period required by the Statutory Instruments Act.

“That failure renders the entire legislation null and void from the date the period lapsed,” he submitted, citing supporting jurisprudence.

The court heard that a 2014 moratorium by former President Uhuru Kenyatta had halted the arrest of persons with artistically enhanced vehicles.

More recently, President William Ruto was cited as having celebrated and awarded “Nganya” culture at a national event.

The petitioner argued this created a legitimate expectation that such artistic expression was permissible, making the NTSA’s sudden enforcement a betrayal of public trust.

Mwalela argued that the NTSA provided no data to prove that artistically enhanced vehicles cause more accidents.

“What is responded and submitted is hearsay,” he stated, adding that the alleged “audits” cited by the NTSA lacked disclosed parameters or verifiable authenticity.

According to Mwalela, the matatus are more than transport.

It is a moving monument to urban identity, a canvas for creativity, and a livelihood for artists.

He insisted that the state’s attempt to strip these designs away isn’t just about rules, it’s a denial of a living, evolving Kenyan culture.

“This art tells our story,” he said.

“To call it ‘repugnant’ is to dismiss the voice of a generation.”

The NTSA, the Attorney General, and the National Assembly through their lawyer Mary Kihamba defended the regulations as lawful, necessary, and procedurally sound.

Kihamba maintained that the regulations were legally enacted under the Traffic Act and the NTSA Act.

She argued that the Delegated Legislation Committee had scrutinized the regulations in line with constitutional and statutory requirements.

The 2024 enforcement notice was characterized as a lawful exercise of the NTSA’s mandate to ensure road safety and vehicle compliance.

The state said this is a proportionate limitation justified under Article 24.

They said public safety on roads is enough to warrant the regulation of vehicle modifications.

The state urged the court not to interfere, framing the issue as a policy decision within the exclusive domain of the transport regulator.

“It is trite law that courts do not substitute their judicial decisions for policy decisions made by rightful authorities,” they argued.

Kihamba said that this is not a war on art, but a necessary regulation of it.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye heard that obscured windows, distracting patterns and unauthorised lighting can and do pose real risks on chaotic roads.

“We are not erasing culture,” a state lawyer said.

“We are ensuring that expression does not cost lives.”

The state also questioned the petition’s merits, arguing the petitioner failed to provide specific evidence of harm or identify a concrete group of affected individuals.

They maintained that the petitioner had not met the high burden of proof required to invalidate a lawfully enacted statute.