The long-anticipated Ksh2.1 billion roads project in Nakuru County has been put on hold after the High Court issued orders suspending its implementation. The decision comes after a petition was filed challenging the manner in which the county government engaged the National Youth Service (NYS) for the massive infrastructure project.
The petitioner argued that the county entered into the agreement without adhering to the fair and competitive procurement processes required under Kenyan law. According to the petition, the deal raised several red flags, including questions about whether NYS qualifies as a direct service provider for such large-scale civil works and whether public participation was adequately conducted before the approval of the project.
Concerns Over Procurement and Transparency
Court documents reveal that the petitioner sought clarification on why the county opted for direct engagement of NYS instead of opening the tender to public bidding, which would have allowed private contractors to compete fairly. The petitioner also claimed that there was insufficient disclosure of the project details, including cost breakdowns, timelines, feasibility assessments, and justification for awarding the project specifically to NYS.
In issuing the temporary orders, the court noted that the questions raised were significant and required thorough examination before allowing the project to proceed. The judge emphasized that public institutions must comply with procurement laws that promote fairness, competitiveness, and accountability especially in projects involving billions of shillings in public funds.
The court further directed all parties to maintain the status quo. This means that no construction, equipment mobilization, financial transactions, or planning activities connected to the contract should take place until the petition is fully heard and determined.
County Government Defends NYS Partnership
In its response, the Nakuru County Government defended the partnership with NYS, stating that the decision was made in good faith to accelerate infrastructure development and reduce costs associated with contracting private firms. County officials argued that working with NYS would ensure efficiency and timely delivery of road rehabilitation across various wards, benefiting both urban and rural communities.
They maintained that NYS has a proven track record in implementing large-scale projects, including roads, water infrastructure, and public utilities in several regions. According to county insiders, the collaboration was also intended to create employment opportunities for youth and support the broader national agenda of empowering the service.
Implications for County Projects and Governance
The suspension of the contract has sparked debate among residents, civil society groups, and governance experts. Some have welcomed the court’s intervention, saying it reinforces the need for accountability and transparency in county deals. Others argue that halting the project could delay crucial road upgrades needed to improve transport, trade, and access to essential services.
The ruling also highlights a broader conversation about the role of state agencies such as NYS in county development projects. While some counties prefer working directly with NYS to cut costs, critics say that such arrangements must still follow procurement rules to avoid irregularities and protect public funds.
If upheld, the court’s final decision could set a precedent on how county governments negotiate large-scale contracts especially those involving state agencies.
What Happens Next?
The case is expected to proceed to a full hearing where both sides will present arguments on the legality of the contract. Until the matter is resolved, all activities related to the Ksh2.1 billion project remain suspended.
Observers say the outcome could influence future infrastructure planning not just in Nakuru, but in other counties considering similar partnerships.
For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the court process, procurement ethics, and the responsibilities of public institutions in safeguarding taxpayer money.
