Nelson Amenya@amenya_nelson
1/2 Nairobi National Park will not be destroyed in one dramatic moment.
On the contrary it’s being systematically erased, quietly, bureaucratically. One “small” project at a time. First the Southern Bypass, then the SGR, then the ICD road, and now another chunk of protected park land is being sacrificed, this time allegedly for a relocated animal orphanage and infrastructure linked to the Bomas International Conference Centre (BICC). But when you look closely at the documents, the story stops making sense. Because buried inside the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are plans for a parking lot designed for 1,300 vehicles. That is not normal wildlife facility parking capacity. That is mall-scale infrastructure. The same EIA states parking provision for only 50 buses and 100 cars in one section, then suddenly expands into a gigantic 1,300-vehicle parking complex elsewhere in the document. The obvious question becomes: who exactly is this parking lot meant to serve, and why should protected national park land be surrendered for it?
Friends of Nairobi National Park (FoNNaP), together with JustAct and Kituo Cha Sheria, have now moved to court to challenge the project and expose what they argue are contradictions, procedural violations, and serious environmental risks surrounding the development. The issue is not whether the Nairobi Animal Orphanage deserves better facilities. Of course it does. The issue is why the government insists on building it inside a protected ecosystem when it could literally be built elsewhere in Nairobi or anywhere else in Kenya without destroying wildlife habitat. Once protected land is lost, it is gone forever.
The most alarming part is that the project documents themselves are riddled with inconsistencies. One section says the project requires 26 acres of land, another says 64 acres, another declares 76.6 acres, while KWS presentations reportedly referenced 89 acres. Which is it? How can an environmental assessment be considered credible when nobody can consistently explain how much land is actually being taken from the park? Then comes perhaps the most disturbing detail of all: a proposed 10-kilometre perimeter fence. Ten kilometres. That would enclose roughly 1,500 acres of land inside Nairobi National Park. Why does an animal orphanage need a 10km perimeter fence? What exactly is being enclosed? What future developments does this create space for? In a country where land grabbing has become normalized and where public land mysteriously transforms into commercial opportunities overnight, these are not paranoid questions. They are necessary questions.
Especially because the same documents explicitly describe integration with the Bomas International Conference Centre through a walkway over Langata Road. KWS insists there is no connection between the massive parking infrastructure and the BICC, but common sense raises unavoidable questions. Why would an animal orphanage require parking infrastructure comparable to major shopping malls in Nairobi? Why has NEMA reportedly refused to release the BICC EIA documents that could clarify these linkages? What are Kenyans not supposed to see?
Even more troubling is that the area being developed is classified in the 2020–2030 Nairobi National Park Management Plan as a “low-use zone” where development, including roads, is prohibited because of the ecological sensitivity of the habitat. Yet the EIA reportedly ignores this entirely. People familiar with the park also dispute claims that the area is rarely used by wildlife. Conservationists and regular park visitors say lions, leopards, black rhinos, birds, and numerous other species actively use this ecosystem. Grasslands are not “empty land.” Forests are not the only ecosystems that matter. Open habitat is critical to wildlife movement, biodiversity, water systems, and ecological balance.
