“Adani must go” protesters force court to adjourn hearing on JKIA concession

A Kenyan High Court adjourned the hearing on a suit filed by the Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) challenging the concession of Jomo Kenyatta International to Adani Group. LSK and KHRC argue that the concession deal is “irrational” and does not follow Kenyan laws, including the Public-Private Partnerships Act of 2021. They want the agreement canceled. 

The 30-year concession agreement, leaked to the public by a whistleblower in July, will include building a new terminal and taxiways at JKIA. Many Kenyans have opposed the deal because of its secrecy—the government has declined to share the specifics of the agreement. 

As public anger swelled, it was channeled to the virtual hearing, which protesters joined while chanting ‘Adani must go.’

“The hearing of the case cannot proceed due to the level of noise in the background on the virtual platform,” said Justice Bahati Mwamuye. “Accordingly, the matter is stood over to Tuesday, October 22 at 11 am in open court.” 

On September 10, the court suspended the project pending the determination of the case. Government officials have been on the spot over the opaqueness of Adani Group’s investment proposals, which also included the construction of transmission lines under a build-and-operate programme.

Adani is owned by Gautam Ambani, India’s second-richest man. It already signed a $736 million contract to build and operate and transfer four transmission lines and two substations for a 30-year-period.

President Ruto’s administration has defended the projects, claiming that public-private partnerships (PPPs) are the only way the country can meet its infrastructural needs as mounting debt cuts government spending.

KHRC and LSK said in court that Kenya can afford to raise the $1.85 billion required to expand JKIA locally. They also insist that Kenyan taxpayers will not get value for their money.

“The Adani proposal is unaffordable, threatens job losses, exposes the public disproportionately to fiscal risk and offers no value for money to the taxpayer,” LSK and KHRC told the court.