President William Ruto has directed the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) to create an enabling framework that allows matatu operators to continue using artwork and graffiti on their vehicles, even after a High Court ruling had upheld restrictions on public service vehicle (PSV) modifications.
Ruto said matatu graffiti is an important form of creative expression within Kenya’s transport culture, and should be accommodated in a manner that does not compromise road safety.
“Recognising the important role of creativity and self-expression within our transport culture, I have directed NTSA to facilitate an enabling environment for matatu operators to continue utilising artwork and graffiti on their vehicles in a manner that upholds safety and respect for other road users,” the President said.
The directive comes against the backdrop of earlier enforcement action by NTSA, which had ordered the removal of graffiti, artistic designs, tinted windows and other modifications from PSVs, citing safety and standardisation concerns.
In April, the High Court upheld the legality of the NTSA directive, ruling that the enforcement notice was constitutional, lawful, and grounded in public safety considerations.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed a petition challenging the regulations and the enforcement notice, stating that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any violation of constitutional rights.
“The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of his constitutional rights or the rights of the class he purports to represent,” the judge ruled.
The petition had argued that the directive was unconstitutional, discriminatory and issued without adequate public participation, and that it threatened Kenya’s popular “Nganya” culture, known for elaborate graffiti, lighting systems and customised matatus.
However, the court found that the restrictions were reasonable under Article 24 of the Constitution, which allows limitation 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,” Justice Mwamuye said.
The court further held that the NTSA notice was a lawful administrative directive aimed at enhancing visibility, passenger safety and compliance within the transport sector, and did not violate fair administrative action or legitimate expectations.
“The NTSA notice is a lawful administrative reminder of existing legal obligations,” the judge ruled.
The ruling affirmed NTSA’s position that the removal of modifications was necessary for road safety enforcement, despite claims that the directive unfairly targeted matatu operators associated with urban transport culture.
While the court rejected the petition in its entirety, it briefly allowed a limited window for the petitioner to pursue an appeal, temporarily preserving parts of the orders for procedural purposes.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
