President William Ruto's administration has suffered a major setback after the Environment and Lands Court sitting in Nairobi issued orders suspending the decision to allow logging in forests across the country.
A brief ruling rendered by Justice Oscar Angote directed that the exercise should stop pending the hearing of a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya.
"Upon reading the application in the absence of parties it is hereby ordered that the application by LSK is certified as urgent and prayer numbers 2, 3 and 4 are granted until August 14 2023," Justice Angote ordered.
"Pending the hearing and the determination of the application and the suit herein, conservatory orders are issued retraining the Respondents either by themselves or through, their agents, servants, employees, proxies or any other person from licensing, permitting, " the judge said.
"Allowing or in any other way exploiting forest resources more particularly, staying the implementation of the policy directive by the Head of State, H.E by William Samoei Ruto, lifting of the ban on logging implemented throughout Kenya in 2018," the judge ordered.
Justice Angote also issued an order staying the government directive on the revocation of the gazette notices previously issued for the degazettement of forest areas or designating areas as forests and the re-introduction of the Shamba system.
Further, he has barred the government from granting licences or permits to log and felling of trees of any nature in any forest in the country.
The judge has also directed Attorney General Justin Muturi, the Environment CS, the Climate Change and Forestry department, Kenya Forest Service and National Environment Management Authority who have been sued by the LSK to file their responses to the case within 5 days.
The orders by the judge were issued after LSK challenged President Ruto's decision of July 2, 2023, lifting the ban on logging in forests implemented in 2018.
According to the lawyer's lobby group, the directives by the President lifting the ban were issued illegally without following due process and the law.
"The directives issues have neither provided the scientific reasons, research, policy directives, specific environmental assessment impact, nor the public participation done in the areas that are likely to be affected by the removal of the ban on logging activities by the state," the petitioners argued.
