CJGEA has been at the forefront of environmental justice in Kenya for over a decade. Could you briefly tell us about the organization’s journey and what drives your work in defending environmental rights? (Feel free to touch on some of your work like the Uyombo case and Owino Uhuru)
At CJGEA, one of our core goals is to advocate for environmental justice, the protection of human rights, and the realization of the right to a clean and healthy environment particularly for marginalized and vulnerable communities. Our approach is grounded in the promotion of procedural environmental rights, which include the right to public participation, the right of access to information, and the right to effective remedies. These rights we believe are fundamental to ensuring environmental democracy and accountability.
A significant example of our work in advocating for the right to effective remedies is the case of the Owino Uhuru community in Jomvu Constituency, Mombasa. This community was exposed to hazardous lead pollution from a nearby lead smelting plant, which operated without proper environmental safeguards. The exposure resulted in severe health impacts, including fatalities. This made CJGEA to initiate legal proceedings against both the smelting company and state agencies that failed to uphold their regulatory responsibilities. This case progressed all the way to the Supreme Court of Kenya, where the court awarded the community KES 1.3 billion (approximately USD 10 million) in compensation for personal injuries and loss of life. We are currently following up with the respondents to ensure that the compensation is fully disbursed and reaches the affected community members.
We also actively champion the right to access information and public participation. A current example is our involvement in Uyombo, where there are plans to construct a nuclear power plant. The local community has expressed strong opposition to the project, citing the lack of consultation, access to critical information among other serious concerns. Despite repeated requests, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) has failed to provide the necessary information or engage the community in any meaningful dialogue. CJGEA continues to support the Uyombo community in advocating for transparency, inclusion, and their right to determine what developments occur in their region. This aligns with one of CJGEA’s guiding principles, a Just Energy Transition, which emphasizes inclusive, equitable, and sustainable energy policies that do not leave communities behind or undermine their rights.
CJGEA has been at the forefront of opposing the proposed nuclear power plant in Kilifi. For our readers who may not be familiar, could you paint a picture of the core concerns? What are the specific environmental, safety, and governance risks that your “Kilifi Nuclear-Free Policy” seeks to address? You could also reflect on how these concerns connect to lessons from the Owino Uhuru lead poisoning case—particularly around government accountability, environmental safety, and community wellbeing.
CJGEA has closely followed the developments surrounding Kenya’s Nuclear Power Program and remains deeply concerned about the lack of adherence to internationally accepted standards, particularly those outlined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA provides a structured framework for countries seeking to establish a nuclear power program. This framework consists of three development phases, each marked by specific milestones, and is supported by 19 key infrastructure issues. These guidelines are essential in ensuring that nuclear power is developed safely, responsibly, and with full consideration of environmental and social impacts.
Unfortunately, Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) has not followed the IAEA guidelines as prescribed. One glaring example relates to the infrastructure issue of environmental protection. NuPEA has identified Uyombo in Kilifi County as a preferred site for the nuclear power plant. This site raises serious environmental red flags. Uyombo is home to the Arabuko Sokoke Forest, the largest remaining dry coastal forest in East Africa and is adjacent to the Watamu Marine Park, a region of immense ecological significance. The area also forms part of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Siting a nuclear facility in such an environmentally sensitive area directly contradicts IAEA recommendations, which discourage locating nuclear installations in ecologically valuable or vulnerable regions. It also undermines the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment as enshrined in Kenya’s legal framework.
Another critical infrastructure issue is stakeholder engagement. NuPEA has failed to meaningfully involve local communities in the decision-making process. The Uyombo community has reported being excluded from consultations, and their attempts to obtain information from NuPEA have been met with silence. This lack of transparency and participation is not only contrary to the IAEA framework but also violates the principles of public participation and access to information.
We are also concerned about the lack of clarity on emergency preparedness and radioactive waste management. NuPEA has yet to publicly outline how it intends to handle these vital components of nuclear safety. This is particularly troubling given past experiences in Kenya such as the Owino Uhuru community Lead Poisoning Case, where the failure to manage toxic industrial waste led to irreparable harm and loss of life in the community. That tragedy stands as a stark reminder of what can happen when environmental safeguards are ignored.
At CJGEA, we believe that Kenya must prioritize safety, environmental protection, and community engagement in any decision to develop nuclear power. Without these foundational pillars, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
Finally, we also believe that Kenya is richly endowed with renewable energy sources including geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro power which are not only safer, but also more affordable, more sustainable, and more reliable than nuclear energy. These sources align better with the principles of environmental justice, climate resilience, and a Just Energy Transition. We strongly urge the government to invest in these proven technologies rather than pursuing a high-risk, high-cost nuclear pathway.
How did CJGEA engage the local community to understand the implications of the nuclear project, and what role did local defenders and community networks play in the resistance movement?
At CJGEA, our approach is grounded in community ownership, communities lead the resistance, and we support them in advocating for their rights. In relation to the nuclear energy project, we have prioritized ensuring that the Uyombo community is well-informed about the project and its potential impacts. To facilitate this, we have developed and disseminated explanatory audiovisual materials in local languages. These resources outline key information on nuclear power, its implications, and the community’s constitutional rights.
Additionally, we continue to identify and work closely with Land and Environmental Defenders (LEDs) who are embedded within the community. These defenders not only help raise awareness but also serve as agents of change, empowering others and reinforcing grassroots advocacy efforts.
Despite the court ruling awarding compensation in the Owino Uhuru lead poisoning case, no reparations have been made to date. What challenges remain in ensuring enforcement, and what does this say about state responsibility in environmental protection?
It is truly deeply concerning that more than five years have passed since the Environment and Land Court judgment, and nearly a year since the Supreme Court judgment, both of which issued clear directives for the community to be compensated within 90 days. Despite these binding court orders, the respondents including state agencies have not taken any meaningful steps toward compensating the affected community. We have continued to actively follow up with the respondents, but progress remains slow and challenging. This failure to comply with explicit judicial timelines raises serious concerns about the respect for the judiciary’s authority and the community’s fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.
We remain steadfast and unwavering in our commitment to support the community in securing the court-ordered compensation that is rightfully theirs.
The project background mentions that CJGEA is under “renewed pressure” following your legal victories. Without compromising your security, can you describe the nature of this pressure and how it impacts your day-to-day work and the well-being of your team and community partners?
Following our legal victories, CJGEA has indeed faced increased pressure from various actors opposed to our advocacy work. This pressure manifests in various forms such as intensified surveillance, attempts to discredit our work, and attacks against the communities and the Land and Environmental Defenders (LEDs) that we work closely with. These dynamics create a more complex environment for our day-to-day operations, requiring us to implement additional safety measures to protect our team and community partners. Despite these challenges, our commitment to defending the rights of the communities remains unwavering. We continue to prioritize the well-being of our staff and LEDs by fostering strong support networks and ensuring their safety is at the forefront of our planning and activities
Partners like Peace Brigades International (PBI) provide international accompaniment. From a defender’s perspective, how does this presence of international observers actually help you in your advocacy, whether in a courtroom, at a county assembly, or just in your office?
The presence of international accompaniment from partners like Peace Brigades International (PBI) plays a crucial role in our advocacy efforts. For LEDs on the ground, having international partners like PBI provides a layer of protection that helps deter intimidation and threats, creating safer spaces for us to carry out our work. In settings such as courtrooms, county assemblies, or even during community meetings, the visibility of international partners signals to local authorities and other stakeholders that the world is watching. This presence can encourage greater accountability and respect for human rights and various due processes.
Moreover, international accompaniment boosts the morale of defenders and community partners, reassuring them that they are not isolated in their struggle. It strengthens our ability to speak out freely and persist in our advocacy for justice and environmental rights.
What lessons have you drawn from these experiences, and what message would you share with other communities or defenders across the world who are fighting for environmental justice and protection of their lands?
Our experiences have taught us the vital importance of community ownership and resilience in the struggle for environmental justice. Legal victories, while significant, are just one part of the journey, sustained advocacy, education, and solidarity are essential to ensure lasting change.
We have also learned that building strong alliances, both locally and internationally, strengthens our position and provides critical support when facing challenges or threats. Equally important is the need for patience and persistence, as progress often takes time and comes with setbacks.
To other communities and defenders across the world, our message is clear: stand firm in your rights, invest in empowering your communities with knowledge, and seek out partnerships that can amplify your voice and protect your safety. Your struggle is part of a larger movement for justice, and together, we can hold power accountable and safeguard our lands for the future generations.