Griffins is a JURIST correspondent and law student at the Kenya School of Law in Kisumu, where he reports on legal, political and human rights developments in Kenya.
On March 9, the Kenya National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) introduced fully automated transport Instant fine traffic management systemThis marks a bold shift in traffic enforcement. The system, introduced after a Policy from the President William Ruto on March 2 relied on surveillance cameras, artificial intelligence and license plate recognition to detect violations and immediately notify drivers via text message. Fines between KSh500 and KSh10,000 had to be paid within seven days through designated channels. Otherwise, motorists risked penalties such as accrued interest and denial of access to NTSA services.
The NTSA justified the system as a solution to deep-rooted problems in Kenya’s transport sector, which include corruption, inefficiency and delays in law enforcement. The agency argued that eliminating direct interaction between drivers and traffic police would lead to improvement transparencyPromote accountability and reduce the burden on the courts by replacing minor prosecutions with administrative penalties.
However, the rollout immediately sparked legal and public backlash controversy. Critics questioned whether an algorithm could legitimately replace court processes. On March 10, 2026, a petition was filed questioning the constitutionality of the system, arguing that it undermines the right to a fair trial and fair administrative action by imposing sentences without a hearing.
The challenge crystallized on March 12, 2026, when the Supreme Court intervened. At the request of civil society Sheria Mtaani and lawyer Shadrack Wambui, Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued conservatorship orders suspending the system. The court prohibited the NTSA, the Attorney General’s Office and related parties from imposing, demanding or enforcing automated fines pending the hearing of the case.
The petitioners raised several constitutional objections. First, they argued that the system violated Articles 47 and 50 of Kenyan law Constitution by denying motorists advance notice, a hearing and the presumption of innocence. Second, they argued that the NTSA had effectively assumed judicial power by determining liability and imposing penalties without involving courts or the public prosecutor’s office. Third, there were privacy and transparency concerns as decisions were made solely by algorithms without human oversight.
If the court had not intervened, the consequences would have been far-reaching. On the one hand, the system could have significantly improved compliance and reduced corruption by limiting discretionary policing. It may also have led to streamlining enforcement and reduced traffic court backlogs. On the other hand, there was a risk that administrative penalties would be normalized without due process, effectively shifting Kenya towards a quasi-automated justice model where guilt is presumed and penalties are imposed immediately. Such a framework could have led to an erosion of constitutional guarantees, particularly for vulnerable motorists who were unable to promptly challenge erroneous fines.
The suspension of the Supreme Court therefore reinforces the primacy of the rule of law over administrative efficiency. By discontinuing the system, the court signaled that technological innovations must remain subordinate to constitutional guarantees. The ruling preserves the role of courts in determining guilt and ensures that any transition to automated enforcement must include procedural fairness, human review and clear legal support.
At the same time, the decision reveals a tension within Kenyan governance: the need to modernize public systems versus the obligation to protect civil liberties. The outcome of the upcoming hearing, scheduled for April 9, 2026, will likely determine the legal boundaries of algorithmic governance in Kenya. Essentially, this dispute is not just about traffic fines, but rather a test case of whether the state can use technology to punish without trial. The court initially denied this.
The opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our local correspondents and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
