By Anchor Writer
Fresh questions have emerged over whether the failure by the Machakos County Government to operationalize a legally required County Environment Committee may have contributed to the escalating dispute surrounding the proposed cement factory at Itimboni in Mavoko Sub-County.
The latest concerns have been raised by Machakos human rights defender Fred Lau, who argues that the controversy has exposed a possible gap in the county’s environmental governance.
Lau questioned why a heavy industrial project was being considered within a predominantly residential area, saying the law provides a mechanism for resolving such disputes before they reach the current level of confrontation.
“Why should such a factory be sandwiched in a residential area?” Lau posed; who is pushing it and for what benefit ?
He pointed to Section 29 of the amended Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), which requires every governor to constitute a County Environment Committee through a Gazette Notice.
According to the law, the committee should be chaired by the County Executive Committee Member responsible for environmental matters and include representatives from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), relevant national ministries, farmers or pastoralists, the business community, public benefit organizations involved in environmental management and regional development authorities.
The Act further mandates the committee to oversee proper environmental management within the county, prepare a five-year County Strategic Environmental Action Plan and perform any additional environmental functions assigned by the Governor.
Lau says that although Machakos County gazetted the committee in March last year, the process was later amended in June after concerns over how the members had been identified.
He alleges that despite the revised Gazette Notice, no appointment letters have been issued and no inaugural meeting has ever been convened.
“The committee has never been operationalized. That creates an administrative action gap. Could this explain why the Itimboni residents are now in trouble?” Lau asked.
His remarks come days after residents accused authorities of ignoring a county suspension order by allowing a public participation exercise on the proposed cement plant to proceed under heavy police protection.
The controversy has also been fuelled by an official letter dated July 3, 2026, from the County Executive Committee Member for Lands, Housing, Urban Development, Roads and Transport, Nathaniel Nganga, directing NEMA not to consider any approvals relating to the project.
In the letter, the county informed NEMA that it had received complaints from residents and stakeholders citing zoning contradictions and environmental health concerns surrounding the proposed development.
The county stated that it had suspended its approval for the project and advised NEMA not to rely on any county approvals or change-of-user documents while processing the developer’s Environmental Impact Assessment licence.
The suspension letter has since become central to the dispute after residents questioned why a public participation exercise linked to the same project was allowed to proceed despite the county’s position.
The Anchor could not immediately establish whether the County Environment Committee has since been operationalized or whether it has considered the Itimboni project.
Yet NEMA appears to tolerate endless public participation meetings as if they are awaiting a resolution in a particular result, said a senior government official living at Itimboni who is opposed to the construction of the cement factory.
If confirmed, the absence of a functioning committee could raise further questions about institutional oversight of environmentally sensitive projects within Machakos County.
Stay Anchored
