The High Court on Friday temporarily halted public participation on the draft Private Security Regulations 2025 after the Security Academy filed an urgent application questioning the notice period and consultation process. The court’s decision highlights concerns that the public was not given enough time to review the draft regulations and provide meaningful input.
The application, filed on November 19, 2025, under a certificate of urgency, argued that the public participation scheduled to start on November 21—just three days after publication on the MYGOV platform—was unreasonably short. In her ruling, Lady Justice Roselyne Aburili acknowledged the urgency, noting that the timing left insufficient opportunity for citizens to engage with the proposals.
The applicant, a security guard, requested leave to file a judicial review, claiming that the brief notice would hinder proper public engagement with the draft regulations. Without examining the merits of the case, the court found the application raised a valid, arguable issue and was neither frivolous nor hopeless.
“Accordingly, I hereby order that the leave so granted shall operate as a stay of the implementation of the public participation notice issued and published on 18th November, 2025, in MYGOV publication, as sought in prayer 3 of the chamber summons, until the substantive motion is filed, heard, and determined,” Justice Aburili ruled.
The respondents in the matter include the Cabinet Secretary for Interior, the Private Security Regulatory Authority, the National Assembly, the National Treasury, and the Attorney General.
The applicant sought to prevent these authorities—or anyone acting under their instructions—from conducting public participation in Garissa, Machakos, Kisumu, Kakamega, Mombasa, Nyeri, and Nairobi, as originally planned.
According to court documents, the Security Academy argued that the notice issued on November 18, 2025, was too brief to allow meaningful engagement. The draft regulations span more than 50 pages across four separate sections, yet the consultation period was limited to only three days, making it difficult for the public to review and respond effectively.
The applicant further highlighted that publication on MYGOV alone restricted public access, as there were no notices issued through other official channels or media.
In addition, residents from some counties, including Wajir and Mandera, were expected to travel long distances to participate in meetings in Garissa, creating additional financial and logistical challenges.
The judicial review also challenges the proposed Private Security Fidelity Levy, arguing that it exceeds the legal authority of the respondents.
The applicant is seeking declarations that the notice violates Articles 10 and 27 of the Constitution, which guarantee good governance, integrity, transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to participate in governance.
