A high-stakes court petition has successfully paused the controversial KSh 80 billion cooperation agreement struck between President William Ruto and Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja.

The complex political architecture governing Kenya's capital city has been thrown into absolute disarray following a decisive legal challenge at the Milimani Law Courts. A coalition of aggressive petitioners has moved to firmly block the implementation of a sweeping intergovernmental cooperation agreement, arguing that the colossal KSh 80 billion pact fundamentally violates the sacred constitutional principles of devolution and public participation.

The agreement, initially heralded as a pragmatic solution to Nairobi's chronic infrastructural and administrative deficits, is now the epicenter of a vicious constitutional battle. This legal standoff strikes at the very heart of the delicate balance of power between the National Executive and the semi-autonomous County Governments, raising profound questions about the limits of presidential intervention in localized municipal affairs.

The Core of the Constitutional Challenge

The petition, spearheaded by Nairobi-based advocate Steve Mbugua Wanjiru and the GEMA WATHO Association, forcefully contends that the February 17 agreement is both illegal and brazenly unconstitutional. The primary legal anchor of their argument rests on the blatant violation of Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya, which strictly mandates comprehensive public participation before the execution of policies carrying such massive fiscal and governance implications.

According to the filed court documents, residents of the capital were systematically excluded from the conceptualization process. The petitioners assert that "at no time prior to the agreement's execution was a structured, countywide public participation process conducted." The citizenry was reportedly deprived of essential explanatory memoranda, detailed fiscal breakdowns, and any alternative models for engagement, effectively rendering the deal a secretive, top-down imposition.

The Kenyan Angle: Devolution Under Threat?

For the millions of residents navigating the daily chaos of Nairobi, this legal battle transcends mere bureaucratic maneuvering; it is a fight for the soul of the city's governance. The impugned agreement controversially introduces a highly powerful Steering Committee, chaired by a national executive officer, effectively bypassing the elected county assembly. This committee is granted sweeping authority to coordinate planning, dictate resource allocation, and issue binding, unchallengeable directions.

Critics view this structure as a stealthy, backdoor recentralization of power. By creating a differentiated governance regime exclusively for Nairobi City County—a framework wholly unavailable to the other 46 counties—the National Government is accused of treating the capital as a subordinate parastatal rather than an equal tier of devolved government. This mirrors the highly contentious and historically fraught creation of the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) during the previous political administration, a move that similarly sparked fierce legal and political warfare.

• Petition filed at Milimani Law Courts by advocate Steve Mbugua Wanjiru.
• Legal challenge entirely halts the KSh 80 billion intergovernmental pact.
• Core argument centers on the blatant lack of Article 10 public participation.
• Critics fear the new Steering Committee fundamentally undermines devolved authority.

The Political Ramifications

The temporary suspension of the agreement places Governor Johnson Sakaja in an incredibly precarious political position. While he has publicly defended the collaboration as a necessary mechanism to unlock frozen national funds and fast-track vital development, the court's intervention severely undermines his administrative momentum. Simultaneously, the National Executive must now justify its aggressive encroachment into county-level planning before a deeply skeptical judiciary.

"When the nation invests in its capital, it must operate within the strict confines of the constitution, not through dictatorial generosity that subverts the rule of law," noted a prominent constitutional analyst monitoring the proceedings.