Kenya High Court Suspends Automated Traffic Fines System, Testing Due Process Rights

By Editorial Team

On March 9, Kenya’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) introduced an automated Instant Fines Traffic Management System, which utilized surveillance cameras and artificial intelligence to detect traffic offenses and notify motorists instantly via SMS. The system imposed fines ranging from KSh 500 to KSh 10,000 to be paid within seven days. However, the system faced immediate legal and public backlash over concerns of due process rights.

Critics questioned the constitutionality of the system, arguing that it violated the right to a fair trial and fair administrative action by imposing penalties without a hearing. On March 12, 2026, the High Court intervened following a petition by civil society group Sheria Mtaani and lawyer Shadrack Wambui. Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued conservatory orders suspending the system and prohibited the enforcement of any automated fines until the case is heard.

The petitioners raised constitutional objections, including violations of Articles 47 and 50 of the Kenyan Constitution by denying motorists prior notice, a hearing, and the presumption of innocence. They also argued that the NTSA had overstepped its authority by assuming judicial powers without involving the courts or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Concerns over data protection and transparency were also highlighted, as decisions were made solely by algorithms without human oversight.

The High Court’s decision to suspend the automated fines system underscores the importance of upholding due process rights over administrative efficiency. The ruling emphasizes that technological innovations must align with constitutional guarantees and that any move towards automated enforcement must incorporate procedural fairness, human review, and clear legal basis.

The pending hearing scheduled for April 9, 2026, will play a crucial role in defining the legal boundaries of algorithmic governance in Kenya. This case serves as a pivotal test on whether the State can utilize technology to impose penalties without due process. The court’s intervention signals a commitment to preserving the rule of law and ensuring that any transition to automated systems respects fundamental rights and legal safeguards.