A contentious cooperation deal between Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja and President William Ruto, aimed at regenerating the capital city, has sparked significant debate and is now facing a legal challenge. The deal, valued at Sh80 billion, proposes allocating Sh3.7 billion for lighting, along with billions more for water infrastructure, sewer lines, and upgrades to informal settlements. While residents might welcome improved services in a city facing decline, serious questions regarding its constitutional validity and procedural adherence have emerged.

Critics argue that despite assurances from Dr. Ruto and Governor Sakaja that the arrangement is a collaboration rather than a transfer of functions, the practical implications suggest otherwise. If critical county functions are indeed to be managed by the national government, legal requirements stipulate a clear deed of transfer approved by the County Assembly. This essential step, along with mandatory public participation, appears to have been bypassed, with public consultation only considered at the tail end of the process, after the document was already presented to the assembly for adoption.

The situation draws parallels to a previous arrangement during Uhuru Kenyatta’s presidency in March 2020, where certain functions of the Nairobi County Government were ceded to the Nairobi Metropolitan Services. Ironically, Sakaja, then serving as Nairobi Senator, criticized Uhuru's administration for opaque contracts and ballooning bills under that model. His current leadership over a similar deal has led many to view it as a return to a controversial governance structure.

The agreement's legality has been formally challenged in the High Court by Benard Peter and Christine Gathoni. Justice Bahati Mwamuye certified the case as urgent, directing the petitioners to serve court papers to the Attorney General, Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi, Governor Sakaja, the Nairobi County Assembly, and the Senate. The petitioners, represented by lawyer Ibrahim Anyinyo, contend that the deal, signed on February 17, is illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of devolution principles.

Anyinyo argued that the billions committed for Nairobi’s regeneration would be spent outside the established devolution structure, bypassing legal oversight channels. He highlighted that the County Assembly has not approved the allocated funds, and the Senate lacks the authority to oversee expenditures made by the Presidency. Furthermore, the creation of a co-authority to manage the capital city is deemed an illegal alteration of the functions assigned to the two levels of government, potentially reconfiguring operational control over devolved functions without the formal transfer arrangements and constitutional safeguards required by Article 187.

The lawyer also asserted that the agreement was concluded without proper public participation, thereby violating Articles 10 and 174(c) of the Constitution. He criticized the timing, stating that the President and Governor