By Erestinah Jane | June 30, 2026
Attorney General Dorcas Oduor has asked the Meru Environment and Land Court to dismiss a petition seeking to stop the proposed construction of an airstrip, golf course and State Lodge in Meru County, arguing that the projects have been misrepresented and would not threaten protected forest land.
In court filings submitted on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forestry, and the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), the government opposed a petition filed by human rights activist Francis Owino, describing it as speculative, unsupported by credible evidence and contrary to the public interest.
The Attorney General’s office argued that one of the key projects under challenge—a proposed airstrip—could in fact enhance forest conservation rather than undermine it.
According to the state’s submissions, the airstrip would improve access for forest management agencies, enabling faster deployment of personnel and equipment during emergencies such as wildfires, illegal logging operations and wildlife security incidents. The government further argued that improved aerial access would strengthen forest surveillance, facilitate environmental monitoring and support eco-tourism initiatives that promote sustainable conservation.
The respondents maintained that modern infrastructure and environmental conservation are not mutually exclusive, provided projects are implemented in accordance with environmental laws and approved planning procedures.
The government also challenged the evidentiary basis of the petition, arguing that many of the allegations regarding environmental degradation rely on unverified social media posts, online commentary and media reports rather than scientific assessments or expert environmental studies.
According to the Attorney General, no environmental impact has been demonstrated because none of the contested projects has reached the implementation stage.
The Ministry of Environment and KFS informed the court that the proposed airstrip, State Lodge and golf course remain conceptual or draft proposals that are still undergoing internal government planning processes.
They stated that no executive approval has been issued to commence construction, no forest land has been excised, no trees have been cleared and no physical development has begun on the disputed site.
The respondents emphasized that any future implementation would only proceed after compliance with all applicable legal requirements, including environmental impact assessments, public participation and approvals from the relevant regulatory agencies, including the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
In a technical aspect of its defence, the government also questioned the petitioner’s description of the affected area, arguing that official government records do not identify or gazette a forest known as “Imenti Forest” in Meru County.
The respondents submitted that the alleged location referred to in the petition does not correspond with officially recognized forest records, raising questions about the factual basis of the claims before the court.
The government further defended a proposed bypass road associated with the broader infrastructure plan, stating that the road alignment follows the edge of the forest rather than passing through protected land. It maintained that all statutory planning and environmental procedures would be followed before any construction is undertaken.
Despite the Attorney General’s request to have the petition dismissed, the Meru Environment and Land Court declined to lift the interim conservatory orders already in force.
The court directed that the status quo be maintained, meaning any excision of forest land, surveying, land clearing or commencement of construction activities connected to the disputed projects remains suspended until the consolidated petitions are heard and determined.
The case has attracted significant public interest, with conservation groups, environmental activists and local residents arguing that the disputed area should remain protected pending a comprehensive judicial determination on the legality and environmental implications of the proposed developments
