A court battle has erupted over the government’s decision to relax fuel sulphur standards, amid warnings that the move could expose millions of people and motorists to dangerous air pollution and serious health risks.
In a constitutional petition filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), the State is accused of secretly allowing the importation of higher sulphur fuel without public participation, scientific disclosure or environmental safeguards, despite the far-reaching public health consequences.
The case stems from an April 30, 2026 government announcement temporarily waiving sulphur limits to allow fuel containing up to 50 milligrams per kilogramme of sulphur for six months.
Though the government said the move was necessary to cushion the country from fuel supply disruptions caused by the Middle East conflict and volatility in global oil markets, LSK argues that alleged economic pressures cannot override constitutional environmental protections.
LSK says the waiver was introduced without disclosing the technical assessment supporting the decision, environmental impact data, public participation records or health mitigation measures.
‘The temporary adjustment of fuel standards raises serious health and environmental concerns under Articles 42 and 69 of the Constitution,’ the LSK states in court papers.
It argues that the decision threatens the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment and exposes consumers to potentially harmful emissions without adequate accountability.
Through lawyer Wilkins Ochoki, the society says the government failed to demonstrate why the fuel standards had to be lowered or explain the long-term consequences of introducing higher sulphur fuel into the local market.
Court documents show the State justified the waiver by citing disruptions in petroleum supply chains linked to tensions in the Middle East.
Emergency questions
The petition says a March 9, 2026 communication from the National Security Council Committee (NSCC) had already warned of possible fuel supply instability and directed State agencies to develop a National Energy Security and Resilience Plan.
LSK now wants the court to compel the government to disclose the status of that plan and explain why emergency preparedness measures allegedly failed despite the earlier warning.
‘The respondents failed to show what emergency, contingency or resilience measures had been implemented despite the earlier NSCC directive on energy security and diversification,’ LSK chief executive Florence Muturi states in the petition.
The lawyers further accuse the State of making critical public health and environmental decisions through opaque administrative processes insulated from public scrutiny.
‘The respondents have treated a matter of direct constitutional significance as an opaque administrative exercise,’ the petition says.
The petition targets the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Epra), the National Treasury, the Energy Ministry, the Trade Ministry, the Attorney-General, the Kenya Bureau of Standards (Kebs) and the National Standards Council.
Disclosure fight
LSK wants the court to suspend or quash the sulphur standards waiver unless the government undertakes and publicly discloses technical, environmental and health assessments supporting the decision.
The society is also seeking orders compelling the Trade Ministry, Kebs and the National Standards Council to file in court all documents underpinning the waiver.
These include technical studies, environmental assessments, consultation records and evidence of public participation.
The petition argues that sulphur standards directly affect air quality and public health because higher sulphur fuel emissions contribute to respiratory illnesses and environmental degradation.
LSK says the State cannot lawfully relax fuel quality standards affecting millions of Kenyans without robust scientific justification and public accountability.
‘The temporary relaxation of fuel quality standards touching on air quality and public health cannot lawfully be sustained without robust disclosure, accountability and environmental justification,’ the petition states.
The suit was filed alongside a broader challenge against the latest fuel price increases announced by Epra on May 14, 2026.
The regulator increased petrol prices by Sh16.65 per litre and diesel by Sh46.29 despite a reduced VAT rate of eight percent and a Sh5 billion subsidy from the Petroleum Development Levy Fund.
LSK argues that the fuel pricing decisions and the sulphur waiver form part of a wider pattern of opaque governance in the energy sector.
The petition claims the State failed to provide a complete breakdown of fuel pricing formulas, subsidy allocations and the use of public funds meant to cushion consumers.
The lawyers further allege that supply chain failures, port delays and market distortions had already triggered severe fuel shortages before the waiver was announced.
The society says the cumulative effect of the disputed decisions has worsened the cost-of-living crisis and heightened public anger across the country.
Ms Muturi says in her supporting affidavit that the government’s actions had triggered protests, fare hikes and economic disruption.
‘The actions of the respondents constitute breach of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, more particularly the right to public participation and consumer protection,’ she states.
The case, expected to test the extent of the government’s powers to alter fuel standards during emergencies, is set for mention on May 28, 2026. The respondents have yet to file their responses to the suit.