A lobby group has moved to court challenging Kajiado North MP Onassis Nguro Ngogoyo’s alleged misuse of public resources through the branding of taxpayer-funded infrastructure with his personal image, name, and political slogans.
In the case, Sheria Mtaani na Shadrach Wambui accuses the legislator of violating key constitutional provisions by converting public infrastructure into personal political billboards an act they claim promotes personality cults, undermines electoral integrity, and distorts public accountability.
They claim that the MP has routinely emblazoned his portrait and slogans on roads, schools, and dispensaries including projects he had no role in initiating, funding, or implementing. Some of the branded projects, the suit claims, predate his tenure in office.
According to court documents, these actions amount to a misuse of taxpayer resources for private political aggrandizement and stands in stark violation of Articles 27, 73, 75, 201, and 232 of the Constitution.
They further argue that public infrastructure projects are implemented by designated State agencies such as KeRRA, KURA, KeNHA, and the National Government Constituency Development Fund (NGCDF) committees not Members of Parliament. MPs, the suit argues, have an oversight role as per Article 95 of the Constitution, not an executive mandate in project execution.
Sheria Mtaani says by branding himself on these projects, the MP appropriates public honour and visibility without legal or democratic sanction.
“Such practices distort public perception, making constituents believe that MPs are directly responsible for development implementation thereby undermining institutional accountability and transparency,” reads court papers
The petition cites a submission by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to the Senate earlier this year, in which the anti-graft agency condemned the practice as unethical and in breach of the Leadership and Integrity Act.
It is their argument that the conduct by Nguro not only erodes public trust but also contravenes the Election Offences Act by covertly using public resources for political gain ahead of elections, granting incumbents an unfair advantage.
“In a country where millions lack access to food, education, and health services, it is unconscionable for scarce resources to be spent on plastering a politician’s face across public assets,” reads court papers
The case will be mentioned on July 22.
