Lawyer asks court to silence Kenya's booming matatu culture

Majority of matatus in Nairobi are fitted with heavy music systems and play loud music. [File, Standard] 

Buses blaring loud music have come to define Kenya’s public transport system.

Despite laws prohibiting excessive noise and court judgments clearly stating that public service vehicles should not have decorative lights, matatu culture appears to operate above the law and has proved difficult to tame.

The louder and more brightly lit a matatu is, the higher the fare it is likely to charge passengers.

However, a lawyer has moved to court, arguing that the government’s failure to rein in matatu owners has fuelled a culture of impunity and recklessness within the industry.

In a case filed before the High Court, Samuel Barongo argues that it is rare for Nairobi residents to board a matatu that is not playing loud—and often lewd—music.

According to him, drivers and their support crews appear unconcerned that they may be damaging passengers’ hearing, or that they could be transporting people who are unwell or who may wish to make phone calls during the journey.

Barongo has sued the Matatu Owners Association (MOA), the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) and the Attorney General, arguing that the responsibility for restoring order in the sector lies with them.

“It is a notorious fact of easy judicial notice that a super - majority of matatu vehicles in Nairobi are fitted with heavy music systems and that they play unsolicited loud music all day long to their passengers,” he argued.

Barongo, who says he has relied on matatus as his primary mode of transport for six years, further contends that the practice amounts to noise pollution and unsolicited torture, forcing commuters to endure the same loud music every day. “ I, as a consumer of transport services, have undergone gruesome torture from loud, unsolicited, repetitive and lowly noise disguised as music whenever I board matatus. The said matatus play the loud music indiscriminately to all on board,” he argued.

Last year, Justice Mugure Thande ruled that the provisions of the Traffic Act do not permit modified illuminating lights, red lights, opaque rear lights, flashing and flickering lights, LED illuminating bars, unauthorised sirens, or unauthorised red and blue lights.

The ruling arose from a case filed by Ezekiel Osewe, who sought to have an order issued by the National Police Service (NPS) on October 28, 2022, suspended.

Osewe sued the NPS, the Attorney General and the NTSA, with the Kenya Human Rights Commission listed as an interested party.

He obtained orders suspending the implementation of the directive pending the hearing and determination of the case.

Osewe argued that the NPS move prompted matatu owners to withdraw their vehicles from the roads in protest, inconveniencing Kenyans who rely on the service for daily transport. He said the disruption led to increased fares among vehicles that remained in operation, making transport unaffordable and preventing many people from reporting to work, thereby putting their jobs at risk. 

Osewe argued that Section 55 of the Traffic Act only outlaws lights that may cause accidents and does not prohibit the use of lights provided they comply with the law.

He told the court that the NPS action effectively created new rules, a mandate that rests with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport.

“Further the lights installed are strategically placed to indicate the length and breadth of vehicles at night to assist other road users.”

According to Osewe, the NPS violated Article 10 of the Constitution by failing to involve stakeholders in the matatu sector and the general public before issuing the directive.

“The Petitioner further claims through the directive the 1st Respondent usurped the DPP’s power to charge thereby violating Article 157 of the Constitution. The directive further usurped the powers of the Minister to make regulations, in contravention of Section 119 or the Act.”

The NPS, however, argued that the directive did not interfere with the DPP’s powers, noting that traffic offences are investigated by the police while charges are preferred by the DPP.

Appearing for the NPS and the Attorney General, Boniface Ojalah said Section 55 refers specifically to the installation of additional, unprescribed lights.

He denied claims that enforcement of the law affected matatu fares, adding that vehicles are required to comply with the law before commencing operations.

Ojalah also dismissed Osewe’s claim that enforcement would “kill matatu culture”, saying it was unsupported by evidence.

Osewe maintained that the directive was overly broad and ambiguous, capable of multiple interpretations, particularly since all vehicles are manufactured with red lights.

Justice Thande ruled that the petition failed to meet the threshold of a constitutional petition, as Osewe did not demonstrate how the NPS violated the Constitution.

In the new case, Barongo is asking the court to declare that playing loud music in matatus violates passengers’ right to good health.

He is also seeking orders compelling MOA, NEMA and the NTSA to ensure all matatus remove loud music systems.