Why Court Has Backed NTSA’s Crackdown on Matatu Graffiti and Tinted Windows

The High Court has dealt a major blow to Kenya’s popular nganya culture after upholding a directive by the National Transport and Safety Authority requiring public service vehicles to remove graffiti, artistic designs and tinted windows.

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed a petition challenging NTSA’s May 2025 enforcement notice, ruling that the directive was lawful, constitutional and justified on road safety grounds.

The case had been filed by Michael Makubo, who argued that the directive unfairly targeted matatu operators and threatened nganya culture, a vibrant urban transport identity associated with colourful graffiti, customised interiors, tinted windows, neon lighting and loud entertainment systems.

But the court disagreed.

Justice Mwamuye found that the petitioner had failed to prove that the directive violated his constitutional rights or the rights of the group he claimed to represent. The court further ruled that NTSA had acted within its legal mandate and that the measures were aimed at promoting safety, order and compliance in the public transport sector.

At the centre of the ruling was the question of whether artistic expression can override public safety regulations. The court held that while matatu art may be culturally significant, rights can be limited where public safety is involved. The ruling relied on the principle under Article 24 of the Constitution, which allows rights to be limited where the limitation is reasonable and justifiable.

NTSA had defended the directive by arguing that excessive graffiti, dark tints and unauthorised modifications make it difficult for enforcement officers and passengers to identify key vehicle details. These include the Sacco or company name, the designated route and the mandatory continuous yellow line used to distinguish licensed PSVs.

The authority also argued that such modifications undermine regulation and make enforcement of public transport laws more difficult. According to NTSA, the directive was not a new law but an administrative reminder requiring PSV operators to comply with existing transport regulations.

The court also rejected claims that the directive amounted to unfair administrative action or discrimination against nganya operators. Justice Mwamuye found that there was no sufficient evidence showing that matatus associated with nganya culture had been unfairly singled out.

The ruling now gives NTSA legal backing to proceed with enforcement against non-compliant PSVs. Operators who fail to remove prohibited modifications risk sanctions, including vehicle impoundment and possible suspension or cancellation of operating licences.

However, the battle may not be over. After the judgment, the petitioner’s lawyer sought temporary relief to allow time to appeal. The court granted limited interim orders, offering affected operators a short window before full enforcement resumes, unless the Court of Appeal intervenes.

The decision is likely to trigger renewed debate in the matatu industry, where nganya culture has become more than a transport style. It has grown into an economic ecosystem supporting artists, designers, fabricators, drivers, touts, investors, photographers and digital content creators.

For NTSA and road safety advocates, the ruling strengthens regulation in a sector often accused of indiscipline and non-compliance. For matatu operators and youth creatives, however, the judgment raises fears that one of Kenya’s most recognisable urban cultures could be pushed out of public roads.

The ruling leaves matatu operators with two choices: comply with NTSA’s directive or escalate the fight to the Court of Appeal.