By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert in Kenya)*

Despite the continued development in the policy and legal framework on public participation and inclusive decision-making processes and the development of international law on the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), the level of openness of the government to citizen engagement in policy and development decision making is largely insufficient and sometimes completely missing even in cases where their livelihoods and rights to property and environment are at stake. There many cases where communities and groups of persons in Kenya have sought court intervention, both locally and regionally, to have their right to participation in decision-making processes affecting their lands. There are also instances where either consent is inappropriately obtained or the government invokes its powers on compulsory acquisition of land with or without adequate compensation. The extractives industry is the best example to in demonstrating the prevailing dynamics of communities’ consent in Kenya.

As a matter of fact, the extractive industry projects place intense pressure on land. At the same time, FPIC introduces heightened social performance requirements at a time where many mining companies are still grappling with the fundamentals of their corporate social responsibilities (CSR). Section 37 of the Mining Act 2016 stipulates that prospecting and mining rights should not be granted under the Act with respect to private land without the express consent of the registered owner, and such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. Consent is deemed to be given for the purposes of the Act where the owner of private land has entered into a legally binding arrangement with the applicant for the prospecting and mining rights or with the Government, which allows for the conduct of prospecting or mining operations; or an agreement with the applicant for the prospecting and mining rights concerning the payment of adequate compensation.

The Mining Act also provides that prospecting and mining rights should not be granted under the Act or any other written law over community land without the consent of the authority obligated by the law relating to administration and management of community land to administer community land or the National Land Commission in relation to community land that is unregistered. For this purpose, consent should be deemed to be given for the purposes of the Act where the registered owners of community land have entered into a legally binding arrangement with the applicant for the prospecting and mining rights or with the Government, which allows the conduct of prospecting or mining operations; or an agreement with the applicant for the prospecting and mining rights concerning the payment of adequate compensation. It is however worth pointing out that the Cabinet Secretary responsible for mining is entitled to take steps under Compulsory acquisition of land or rights or interests in land, to vest the land or area in question, or rights or interests in such land or area, in the Government or on behalf of the Government, where the consent required under sections 36, 37or 38 of the Mining Act 2016 is unreasonably withheld or the Cabinet Secretary considers that withholding of consent is contrary to the national interest.

Courts in Kenya have demonstrated willingness to uphold the requirement for seeking community consent where the same was not sought. For instance, in the case of Mohamed Hussein Haji v Issa Kuno & 4 others [2018] eKLR36, the petitioner sought a declaration that the Petitioner was entitled to information from the Respondents to verify and confirm whether constitutional and statutory regulatory requirements were complied with before the 1st and 2nd Respondents began their mining activities in the Ali Jibril area, within Wabari Ward in Garissa County, amongst other reliefs. The Court, ruling in favour of the petitioner, observed that in the case of a community land which falls within the ambit of customary law ownership which is neither public nor private, before any interest is acquired by any individual, the persons who ordinarily use that particular land must be consulted. The Court added that development that threatens life is not suitable development and it must be halted.

In environmental law, intergenerational equity involves the application of equity within the present and future generation such that each member has an equal right to access the earth’s natural and cultural resources. The land in question had not been acquired by the government from the community concerned by way of compulsory acquisition. The land belonged to the community and was held by the County Government of Garissa in trust for the affected community. There was no indication that consent was sought and obtained from the said County Government of Garissa.  The land in question was an unregistered community land held in trust by the County Government of Garissa on behalf of the communities and as seen from the decision above, the consent of the county government must be obtained on behalf of the community. While the finding in this case is a step in the right direction by Kenyan courts to protect the interests of communities, there is still the risk of investors directly seeking the consent of county governments who then ignore communities and purport to grant consent on behalf of such communities. This may be done without the County government in question first engaging the communities to help them appreciate the whole project and the process in question and how the same might affect their livelihoods.

The question of consent has not only been arisen in the Kenyan context only. In South Africa’s case of Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources (Pty) Limited and Another 2019 (2) SA 1 (CC), the Constitutional Court overruled an eviction order, issued by a lower court to a mining company, permitting it to evict 13 families from a farm in the Lesetlheng Community, North West Province, where the company had mining rights. Significantly, the court upheld a provision in the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, a law enacted to protect land rights after apartheid, which says that no person may be deprived of any informal right to land without his or her consent. The mining company had secured consent to the granting of the right from the minister who held the land in a trust and the traditional council but those living on the land were not consulted, as the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act required. The Constitutional Court ruled they could not be evicted because they had not been consulted and consented, nor were mechanisms for resolving disputes under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act exhausted.

This issue was also canvassed before the Pretoria High Court, in Baleni v Minister of Mineral Resources 2019 2 SA 453 (GP) where court ruled that companies must first seek permission from local communities if they plan to mine on their ancestral land (the famous Xolobeni judgment). There are, however, those who have challenged the High Court decision as one that would make it practically impossible to get mining rights on traditional land because of the numbers of people affected. The critics of the South African High Court’s decision did not however see any problem with the Constitutional Court’s decision which is seen as one with two sides of the requirement for consent of the occupiers: The first is the consent of the traditional authority as the lawful representative of the community; and the second is the consent of those directly affected, both of which do not require the consent of every single occupier and makes a provision for majority consent under common law. The problem with requiring consent of every person living within an area, even those not directly affected by any proposed development project is that one faction of the community in question may be in favour of the mine because of the potential economic benefits as a result of compensation and the other would be opposed because it would affect their traditional way of life.

Last year in September, the Pretoria High Court, again in Baleni and Others v Regional Manager Eastern Cape Department of Mineral Resources and Others [2020] 4 All SA 374 (GP), handed down yet another landmark judgment confirming that mining-affected communities have the right to access information about the projects that impact them. In a case filed by the Leaders of the Umgungundlovu community which had for the last five years been concerned about the impacts of titanium mining proposed in the Xolobeni area of the Eastern Cape and were refused access to the mining rights application. They approached the High Court under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) of South Africa arguing that the usual process for requesting that kind of information places communities at a disadvantage and may prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights.  High Court ruled in favour of the Community ordering that interested and affected parties, the Community must be furnished with a copy of an application for a mining right to have meaningful consultation on an equal footing. What this means is mining community members will by default have access to the information to participate fully in discussions with mining companies and the state in their quest to realise other constitutional rights.

The Court, in the case of Patrick Musimba v National Land Commission & 4 others [2016] eKLR, opined that it had no doubt that the State under Article 69 of the Constitution is enjoined to ensure sustainable development and is also bound to ensure that every person has a right to a clean and healthy environment. However, physical development must also be allowed to foster to ensure that the other guaranteed rights and freedoms are also achieved. Such physical development must however be undertaken within a constitutional and statutory framework to ensure that the environment thrives and survives. It is for such reason that the Constitution provides for public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment. It is for the same reason too that the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (“the EMCA”) has laid out certain statutory safe guards to be observed when a person or the State initiates any physical development.

The Court went on to state that at the core is the Environmental Impact Assessment and Study which is undertaken under Section 58 of the EMCA and the regulations thereunder. Under Regulation 17, the Environmental Impact Assessment Study must involve the public. The inhabitants of any area affected by a physical development must be given an opportunity to air their views on the effects of any such development. After the Environmental Impact Assessment Study report is compiled, the same report must be circulated to the affected persons. The challenge is thus balancing the interests of both groups while ensuring that the ensuing court battles do not affect the country’s development agenda. This defines the burden on the states which, in addition to securing a balance between corporate and citizen rights, must grapple with the challenge of creating and fostering conditions for sustainable and diversified economic growth if they are to avoid the so-called ‘resource curse.’

*This is article is an extract from an article by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD: Muigua, K., “Maximising the Right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for Enhanced Environmental Justice in Kenya,” Available at: http://kmco.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/03/Maximising-the-Right-to-FPIC-in-Kenya-Kariuki-Muigua-29th-March-2019. pdf. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is Kenya’s foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized as one of the leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts by the Chambers Global Guide 2021 and nominated as ADR Practitioner of the Year (Nairobi Legal Awards) 2021. 

References

Booysen, M., ‘Mining Rights and Communities – Does The Xolobeni Judgment Take South Africa Forwards Or Backwards?’ iAfrica, February, 4, 2019.

Bruce, L.A., “Game-changing judgment for Xolobeni community on mining rights applications,” available at: https://www.wits.ac.za/news/sources/cals-news/2020/game-changing-judgment-for-xolobeni-community-on-mining-rights-applications.html (accessed on 18/11/2021).

Mavhinga, D., “South Africa’s Constitutional Court Protects Land Rights: Landmark Rulings Protect Women and Communities Affected by Mining Companies,” Human Rights Watch, November 6, 2018. Available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/06/south-africas-constitutional-court-protects-land-rights [Accessed on 18/11/2021].

United Nations Environmental Programme, “South African indigenous community win environmental rights case over mining company,” December 7, 2018. Available at https://www.unenvironment.org/ news-andstories/story/south-african-indigenous-community-win-environmental-rights-case-over-mining [18/11/2021].