Kenya’s Land Acquisition Tribunal has thrown fresh doubt on the government’s push for the 11,500-acre Samburu Security Land Acquisition, raising red flags over legality, process, and impact on local communities.
What began as a limited request for security land quietly expanded into a massive takeover of community land. The case now exposes gaps in public participation, risks to water and grazing systems, and ignored constitutional safeguards for pastoralists.
The tribunal stopped short of blocking the project but ordered a sweeping review that could reshape how security-driven land acquisitions proceed.
What the Tribunal Found Wrong With the 11,500-Acre Samburu Security Land Acquisition
The Land Acquisition Tribunal has questioned the legality of the government’s plan to acquire more than 11,500 acres in Samburu County for security infrastructure and training. The Tribunal directed the National Land Commission (NLC) to review the acquisition process and file a comprehensive report within 90 days.
The ruling follows a complaint by community representatives challenging the expanded scope of the proposed takeover of L.R. No. Samburu/East Waso/1. The Tribunal found that while the state followed some legal steps, it failed to meet critical constitutional and social safeguards.
The dispute traces back to February 2024. The Ministry of Interior and National Administration formally asked the NLC to acquire 2,183.91 acres for security development. The Tribunal confirmed the request through documentary evidence.
“The evidence before us demonstrates that the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & National Administration wrote to the Respondent on 29 February 2024, requesting the Respondent to acquire 2183.91 acres being part of the suit property,” the Tribunal stated.
Months later, the scope of the project expanded. The government justified the increase on heightened security needs in the region. That shift triggered community resistance and eventually landed before the Tribunal.
On 30 October 2024, the Director General of the National Intelligence Service wrote to the NLC seeking an amendment. The letter asked the Commission to expand the acquisition to 4,675.84 acres to include an adjacent hill. Subsequent internal decisions pushed the total targeted land to 11,553 acres.
The Tribunal noted that the government failed to clearly explain why the project ballooned so dramatically or why less disruptive alternatives were not considered.
Why the 11,500-Acre Land Acquisition Is Under Scrutiny
The Tribunal focused its scrutiny on process, proportionality, and protection of marginalized communities. Samburu County hosts pastoral communities that depend heavily on communal land for grazing, water access, and seasonal movement.
Community representatives argued that the expanded acquisition would cut off access to critical water sources linked to the Ewaso Nyiro River. They warned that the move would disrupt dry-season grazing routes that sustain livelihoods during drought.
They also highlighted direct economic losses. The land currently generates about KSh 12 million annually through leases to Kamanga Holdings Limited. The income supports bursary programs, community development, and carbon credit benefits. The complainants said compensation alone could not replace these long-term benefits.
The community further accused officials of undermining public participation. They claimed authorities used falsified attendance lists, issued insufficient notices, and delayed public inquiries. Many residents, they said, only learned of the project nearly a year after it began.
The Tribunal treated these claims seriously. It emphasized that public participation must be real, timely, and inclusive, especially where community land and marginalized groups are involved.
Community Impact and Rights at Risk
A friend of the court reinforced the community’s case by citing international legal precedents. The submission referenced the Endorois and Ogiek cases, which established that involuntary dispossession of community land without adequate consultation violates rights to property, culture, and natural resources.
The Tribunal agreed that such standards apply. It found that the government failed to conduct a social impact assessment before moving forward. That omission, the Tribunal said, left decision-makers blind to how the acquisition would affect livelihoods, culture, and environmental sustainability.
The Tribunal also faulted authorities for failing to assess proportionality. It noted that national security, while important, does not automatically override community rights. The state must prove that the scale of acquisition is necessary and that no less intrusive options exist.
NLC Defence and Tribunal Orders
The National Land Commission defended its actions. It told the Tribunal that the Interior Cabinet Secretary properly requested the acquisition. It said gazette notices were published, field inspections and valuations took place, and a public inquiry occurred in January 2025.
The Commission also argued that national security concerns justified the expanded acquisition. It assured the Tribunal that compensation would address community losses.
The Tribunal acknowledged that some procedures were followed. However, it ruled that procedure alone was not enough. It stressed that constitutional obligations require deeper analysis when community land and marginalized groups are affected.
As a result, the Tribunal ordered the NLC to conduct a full social impact assessment of the 11,500-acre Samburu Security Land Acquisition. The assessment must examine effects on livelihoods, grazing land, water access, cultural heritage, economic viability, and the environment. It must also explore alternatives that could reduce disruption.
“The Respondent be and is hereby directed to conduct a social impact assessment study of the acquisition… and to file the same before the Tribunal within 90 days,” the court stated.
Each party will bear its own costs. The Tribunal will mention the matter after 90 days to confirm compliance.
The ruling sends a clear message. Security projects must respect constitutional rights, especially where community land is at stake. The fate of the Samburu land now rests on whether the state can justify its case under stricter scrutiny.
