Final NET Judgment summary

The National Environment Tribunal (NET) revoked the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence for a proposed 1,050MW coal-fired power plant in Lamu County, Kenya. The decision was based on failures in public participation, inadequacies in the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Study Report, and the failure to account for Kenya's Climate Change Act, 2016.

• The National Environment Tribunal (NET) revoked the EIA licence for Amu Power Company Limited's 1,050MW coal plant in Kwasasi, Lamu County, on 26 June 2019, due to legal and procedural failures.
• Public participation during the ESIA study phase was found to be non-existent and in violation of the law, as the project proponent proceeded to identify impacts and mitigation measures without the views of the affected people of Lamu.
• The public hearing held on 26 August 2016 was deemed procedurally unfair and defective because it occurred before the deadline for public comments had lapsed and lacked the required consultative nature, instead becoming a "popularity contest".
• Amu Power failed to conduct a proper analysis of alternative project locations, as the site was preselected as part of the LAPSSET corridor project without a required Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
• The ESIA Study Report contained critical omissions, including the lack of detailed architectural and engineering plans, and failed to include information on a 2,000-acre limestone quarry, a 15-kilometer coal conveyor belt, and a coal handling berth.
• Mitigation measures for the ash yard were considered inadequate because the site is prone to tidal flooding, which is likely to be exacerbated by climate change, and the ash yard design was incomplete at the time of submission.
• The project failed to account for the Climate Change Act, 2016, which had been enacted by 27 May 2016, leading the tribunal to apply the precautionary principle and reject the proponent's lack of clarity on climate implications.
• The EIA licence issued by NEMA was revoked because its conditions were too generalized and did not specifically incorporate the mitigation proposals identified by the respondent.

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). Final NET Judgment summary. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Final-NET-Judgment-summary.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. Final NET Judgment summary. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Final-NET-Judgment-summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=Final NET Judgment summary |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Final-NET-Judgment-summary.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendfinal, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{Final NET Judgment summary}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Final-NET-Judgment-summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }