For nearly a decade, a legal battle has stormed over a proposed coal power plant – one that epitomises the clash between Kenya’s economic ambition and its duty to protect its people and environment. Now, as courts prepare to deliver a final ruling, a critical question arises: Who can Kenyans rely on to protect their environment and, ultimately, their livelihoods?
The Birth of a Controversy
In 2016, AMU Power Company was granted plans to build East Africa’s first ever coal power plant as part of the mega-infrastructure project known as The Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor Programme. Spanning 865 acres and featuring a 210-meter tall smoke stack – to become the tallest structure in all of East Africa – the plant was pitched as a game changer for Kenya’s energy landscape. Facilitated by the Ministry of Energy, the government, struck the deal, envisaging improved living standards and quality of life through employment creation, poverty reduction, better infrastructure and services, and providing cheap and reliable energy.
However, as the construction advanced, there was an immediate backlash and local opposition mounted. The NGO Save Lamu and stakeholder groups organised under the “deCOALonize” umbrella and decided to take action. They challenged the completeness and scientific sufficiency of the project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and argued that public participation was executed inadequately.
A Licence to Destroy?
For a project such as this one, obtaining environmental clearance was crucial. AMU Power commissioned Kurrent Technologies Ltd. to conduct their ESIA, which was then approved by Kenya’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) on 7 September 2016. NEMA is the principal instrument of the Kenyan government for the implementation of all policies relating to the environment. Together with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), NEMA defended the approval, insisting that all technical, economic, and environmental concerns had been addressed.
But Save Lamu and allies were quick to challenge this. They contended that the ESIA lacked a thorough analysis of the pollution generated by the coal plant – specifically from coal, dust, and ash – and its subsequent impact on the environment and local communities. They emphasised that burning coal releases particulate matter, which is linked to respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and cancer. Their case also stated that the construction of extensive infrastructure for the plant would encroach upon delicate ecosystems, jeopardise air quality, biodiversity, and endanger marine life crucial to Lamu’s economy.
Beyond environmental risks, activists highlighted a glaring democratic failure: the lack of genuine public participation. The National Environmental Tribunal later echoed these concerns, stating:
“Would the members have supported the projects if they know about effects on human health, damage of flora and fauna, immature deaths and even caused adverse effects on forests? There might be ways to mitigate the same. However, the residents ought to have been notified of these before a licence was issued.”
The courtroom battle
The legal resistance bore fruit in 2019 when the National Environmental Tribunal revoked the licence granted to Amu Power Company Limited by NEMA; a landmark victory, but the battle was far from over. AMU Power quickly appealed the decision, prompting Save Lamu to submit a cross-appeal. The case has since been entangled in debate and red tape, delaying a definitive resolution.
As Kenyan courts prepare to make a final ruling on the case on 29 May 2025, one must ask: Why did it take grassroots activists and community groups to challenge such a controversial project? Why didn’t the very institutions tasked with environmental protection – like NEMA – act decisively to prevent this?
Coal Vs. renewables: The bigger picture
NEMA’s approval of the Lamu coal plant raises serious concerns about the alignment of government policies with Kenya’s environmental commitments. The agency’s own Strategic Plan 2023–2027 “envisions a clean, healthy and sustainably managed environment” to be achieved through strategic goals, namely, “support low emissions and climate-resilient development pathways; sustained healthy ecosystems; minimised levels of environmental pollution; accelerate adoption of resource-efficient and circular economy”. NEMA uses the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a tool for ensuring sustainable development and to mainstream environmental and social safeguards. Yet, the coal plant approval contradicts this vision.
Further investigation into Kenya’s current energy mix shows that coal may have no place. In 2022, renewable energy garnered an 87.7 per cent share of Kenya’s total power generation. Domestic energy production in Kenya is already dominated by wind, solar and biofuels.
In 2022, Kenya ranked 15th globally for its renewables’ share of electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency. Given these advancements, why revert to coal, a globally declining energy source notorious for its environmental and health impacts?
Taufiq Ahmed Ali, owner of the last remaining locally owned beachfront property in Shela, Lamu, questions the rationale behind the project:
“There are different ways to produce electricity. We have plenty of sun, so why not solar or wind? Many people here in Shela have solar. I have solar, and I’m very happy with it. I’m running my business and restaurant with solar. They don’t have to destroy our nature – please find another option.”
The Executive Summary of the ESIA submitted to NEMA by AMU Power acknowledges the plant’s significant drawbacks and mentions the negative impacts on air quality from plant operations, contamination of soil and water resources, and harm to biodiversity, increased greenhouse gas emissions (by 6–10 per cent based on 2010 figures), visual damage to the landscape, destruction of cultural heritage sites, and adverse socio-economic impacts. The influx of workers could also burden public infrastructure, disrupt local economies, and strain essential services.
Even from an economic standpoint, coal is losing ground. The coal power plant project suggested that it will inject electricity into the national grid as part of the Government of Kenya’s Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP) for power generation. However, a report by the International Renewable Energy Agency found that 56 per cent of new utility-scale renewable energy projects achieved lower electricity costs than the lowest-cost coal plants. In fact, with falling costs, renewables are not only more sustainable, they are also a smarter and more cost-effective investment for Kenya’s future.
A pattern of neglect
The Lamu case is not an isolated one. It is part of a broader trend where economic interests override environmental protections and local well-being. Muhammad Abdulrahman Ahmed, a conservationist from Lamu, expresses deep frustration:
“We always hear that different things will help the economy or people of Lamu, but in the end, we never see these benefits. The beneficiaries are outsiders, and the people who are affected are us. We heard the same for the LAPSSET port, but in the end, there are very few permanent opportunities for people from Lamu. If this is about energy or jobs, there are so many other opportunities to explore. Give us an alternative.”
The pattern is clear; time and time again, projects that promise prosperity fail to deliver for local communities, while the environmental and social costs are borne by those with the least power to resist.
A verdict awaited
On 29 May 2025, Kenya’s courts will determine whether to uphold the 2019 ruling that revoked the coal plant’s licence. The decision will not just impact Lamu, it will signal Kenya’s commitment (or lack thereof) to sustainable development, public health, and environmental justice.
Perhaps, in the end, it is not government agencies but grassroots organisations and community voices that will have to fight for Kenya’s future.
The people have power. Will they be heard?
