NAIROBI, Kenya Jun 2 — The High Court has been informed that officials from Katiba Institute were denied access to a site in Laikipia allegedly identified for an Ebola quarantine, exposure, and treatment facility, raising concerns over compliance with existing court orders.
The organisation told the court that its attempts to inspect the location were blocked, making it impossible to verify whether conservatory orders earlier issued by the court were being followed on the ground.
Appearing before the court, lawyer Nyawa Malidzo said there were reports suggesting that construction or related activities could be ongoing at the disputed site.
“There are reports that construction is ongoing,” the court heard.
Malidzo argued that the parties involved in the case should be required to appear before the court and provide a clear update on developments at the site, particularly in Laikipia.
He maintained that access restrictions had hindered oversight efforts by the petitioners.
“We were not allowed access to the site and therefore cannot confirm whether the court orders are being complied with or not,” he submitted. “The parties are necessary because they can brief the court on what is going on in Laikipia.”
The lawyer further urged the court to take what he described as a more proactive role in ensuring compliance with its directives, noting that court orders must be respected by all parties.
“The court needs to take a proactive step to ensure that its orders are complied with,” he said.
In addition, Malidzo criticised the absence of the Attorney-General from the proceedings, describing it as regrettable given the office’s role as the government’s principal legal adviser.
“It is disappointing that the Attorney-General, who is the principal legal adviser to the government, has decided to ignore the court proceedings,” he told the court.
The matter stems from a petition challenging alleged government plans to establish Ebola exposure, quarantine, isolation, and treatment facilities in Kenya under arrangements with foreign partners.
The court had previously issued conservatory orders temporarily halting any establishment or operationalisation of such facilities pending the determination of the case.
