The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) registers its deep concern and outrage at the violence, loss of life, and arbitrary arrests that occurred during the public participation session on the Environmental and Social  Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report for the proposed Ikolomani Gold Mine by Shanta Gold on 4th December 2025. What should have been a lawful, peaceful, and inclusive civic process degenerated into intimidation, chaos, and impunity targeting citizens whose only intention was to demand respect for their rights and freedoms.

This incident is part of a disturbing and escalating pattern in Kenya’s extractive sector, where communities seeking accountability are met with brutal force, political threats, and procedural manipulation. Mining zones are increasingly becoming death traps rather than engines of community development. We continue seeing State and corporate repression been normalized in curtailing civic freedoms when expressing dissent against punitive and anti-people decisions. This must stop. In this regard, we wish to submit the following concerns and recommendations: -

  1. Abrogation of Peoples Power in Natural Resources Governance

The regime in office together with its corporate accomplices have adopted an unconstitutional and oppressive notion that minerals belong to the government for exploitation at whims. This is the warped and misconceived understanding that is creating the effrontery that people have no say in the exploration and exploitation of minerals.

We wish to take this opportunity to affirm that the sovereignty of the people as proclaimed in Article 1 of the constitution applies in all spheres of governance including natural resource sector. This means that the people retain the ultimate authority and the right to self-determination in all processes involving public resources and interests.

This is further affirmed by the provisions of Chapter 5 on Land and Environment in the constitution (where land is defined to comprehensively include natural resources[1]) in Article 61(1) that: “All land belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and individuals”. Notably, the government is not listed as an owner but functions only as a trustee and administrator on behalf of the people.

It is therefore time for the regime to understand that it has no monopoly over decisions concerning the management of extractives and other land-based resources. Such decisions cannot lawfully or morally proceed without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from the people, who remain the ultimate owners and rights-holders.

  1. State Repression undermining public participation in Resource Governance

Active and meaningful civic engagements and accrual of benefits thereof is one of the best mechanisms of realizing the aforementioned sovereignty in resources governance.  To this end, we want to remind the government and Shanta Gold that public participation is a constitutional right under Articles 10[2], 35[3], 42[4], 69[5], and 70[6] of the Constitution of Kenya. It is also a core element of environmental democracy under Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA)[7] and the Environmental Impact Assessmentm(EIA)[8] Regulations.

The violent disruption of a lawful public forum, the reported deaths, and the arbitrary arrests of residents represent a gross and unacceptable violation of the rights to life, human dignity, peaceful assembly, expression, and access to information. This is inimical to our constitutional, policy and international human rights obligations.

KHRC condemns, in the strongest possible terms these injustices geared towards silencing legal and legitimate community concerns. Requisite state and civic institutions must urgently come in to ensure the protection of the land, resources and environmental justice defenders in this space.

We also call upon the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) to exercise its constitutional obligations under Article 59(1)(e)[9] to independently investigate these and ensure that the perpetrators held to account. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) should also step in.

  1. NEMA’s Failure to Safeguard Environmental and Community Rights

KHRC notes with grave concern that the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) has become increasingly unresponsive to public objections and community memoranda on extractive projects across the country. Despite serious concerns tabled by residents of Ikolomani including concerns over livelihood risks, displacement, and environmental impacts NEMA failed to ensure a secure, dignified, and transparent public participation process. This failure raises a fundamental question of Whose interests does NEMA serve?

Its recent conduct signals a worrying departure from its statutory and constitutional mandate as an independent environmental regulator. Undoubtedly, and as evidenced across several mining regions, NEMA has become the weakest link in environmental governance and the biggest institutional betrayal of communities living in mining zones.

In Kambe Ribe, Kilifi County, for example, the persistent cries of community members regarding the abuse of ESIA processes and the severe pollution of air, water, and the surrounding environment by Simba Cement have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. Despite numerous attempts by residents to seek NEMA’s intervention, the agency has remained silent and inactive, allowing impunity to thrive at the expense of public health, environmental integrity, and constitutional rights.

KHRC demands that NEMA: -

  • Immediately suspend the ESIA approval process for the Ikolomani Gold Mine.
  • Facilitate a fresh, inclusive, and independently monitored public participation forum.
  • Publicly explain its failure to address the submissions and objections raised by residents.

Further, KHRC calls upon the Joint Parliamentary Committee on lands, natural resources, minerals, forests, and environment to exercise its oversight mandate over NEMA and ensure that the agency faithfully implements its constitutional and statutory obligations in this matter.

  1. Artisanal Miners’ Livelihoods Are Under Threat

One of the central issues at stake is the fear among Artisanal and Small-scale Miners (ASM) that the entry of Shanta Gold will erase their livelihoods and criminalise their long-standing economic activities.

ASM supports thousands of families in Kakamega and surrounding regions. Yet they have been excluded from critical consultations, and no transition or inclusion plan has been presented. This disregard violates their rights, disrupts local economies, and undermines national development frameworks that promote formalisation and support of ASM.

As per the Mining Act of 2016[10], ASMs are  not illegal actors, they are rights-holders whose livelihoods must be protected, respected, and integrated into Kenya’s mineral development agenda.A study on the status of the Artisanal and Small Scale Miners is critical. Such would deepen public understanding of their needs and impact.

  1. Communities Fear Forced Evictions and Relocation

Residents around the proposed mining areas fear arbitrary displacement, loss of ancestral land, and disruption of cultural and social systems yet no clear, rights-based resettlement or compensation framework has been communicated.

This is a gross affront to the Constitution of Kenya, the National Land Policy, the Land Act, the National Land Commission Act, and international human rights standards including the UN Guidelines on Forced Evictions, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and the Right to Remedy

It is high time Kenya upheld these and adopted a comprehensive national policy on resettlement and compensation, anchored in human rights, FPIC, and constitutional guarantees, to prevent such recurring violations.

No project should proceed where communities are threatened with eviction or forced to accept projects under coercive or opaque circumstances.

We also call upon the KNCHR, Office of the Attorney General and Parliament to ensure the enforcement of these.

  1. A National Pattern of Violations: Ramula (Siaya) and Mwibona (Vihiga)

The crisis unfolding in Ikolomani mirrors the same human rights violations reported in Ramula, Siaya County, and Mwibona, Vihiga County where Shanta Gold is associated with similar irregularities, lack of transparency, and procedural breaches. In both areas: -

  1. Residents report the deployment of security agents to antagonise, intimidate, and harass community members.
  2. Public participation did not occur or was deeply flawed.
  3. NEMA proceeded to approve the ESIA despite these failures.
  4. The State Department of Mining now appears poised to issue licences to Shanta Gold, relying on ESIA approvals by NEMA that are deeply questionable and arguably unconstitutional. This move disregards the more than 300+ objections submitted by residents of Ramula, none of which received any response and comes amid serious concerns that no feasibility study was conducted in Mwibona and that public participation in the ESIA processes was either fundamentally defective or entirely absent.

This raises serious questions about the integrity of Kenya’s ESIA and licensing processes and the increasing misuse of state security to silence community voices. KHRC reminds all state agencies that no mining licence overrides community rights. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not optional but rather it is a binding legal and ethical requirement.

We therefore call upon the Government of Kenya to: -

  1. Immediately halt all licensing processes involving Shanta Gold in Ikolomani, Ramula, and Mwibona.
  2. Return to the communities for genuine, inclusive, and independently supervised public engagement.
  3. Ensure full compliance with FPIC, EMCA, the Mining Act (2016), the Constitution of Kenya, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Again we urge KNCHR and parliament to monitor and oversight these.

  1. Corporates violating their national and transnational human rights obligations

The situation described above is a direct consequence of deepening corporate capture where private companies, through their proximity and influence within State structures, are allowed to operate with impunity and outside the bounds of accountability. This pattern is not isolated to Ikolomani, Ramula, or Mwibona; it mirrors what communities in Kambe Ribe, Kilifi County, continue to experience, where Simba Cement has operated with similar disregard for the law, community rights, and environmental safeguards.

We therefore demand that, as the project proponent, Shanta Gold must fully comply with the Constitution of Kenya, all applicable national policies and laws, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, relevant regional and international treaties, the African Mining Vision, and Kenya’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights

Failure to conduct proper human rights due diligence and failure to prevent harm is unacceptable, irresponsible, and unlawful and should be exposed and challenged accordingly.

  1. KHRC’s Commitment

KHRC stands firmly with the people of Ikolomani, Ramula, Mwibona, and all communities where mining activities are resisted due to abusive and exploitative extractive practices.We will continue to:-

  • document and expose the violations,
  • pursue accountability within the national and transnational policy chains,
  • support community training, organising, actions and protection
  • provide legal and advocacy support, and
  • push for a rights-respecting extractive sector grounded in justice and human dignity.

As an organization committed to the protection of human rights and the rule of law, we reiterate that no Kenyan should be violated for participating in a public forum, no miner should lose their livelihood without due process, and no community should be intimidated for demanding transparency and justice.If Kenya’s extractive sector is to contribute meaningfully to national development, it cannot be built on fear, coercion, or the suppression of rights. It must be grounded in accountability, community consent, and the highest standards of human rights. This can only be realised when we respect and uphold our national and international obligations on governance, environmental protection, and human rights.

A genuine appreciation of the inviolable rights and sovereign power of the people especially in decisions affecting land and natural resources is indispensable. It is imperative for the State to remember at the onset, that it is not the owner of these resources. It is merely a trustee, mandated to act in the best interests of the people and the nation. KHRC will continue to stand guard to ensure that the Constitution is upheld to the letter and that the rights of communities are never sacrificed in the name of development.

[1] Under Article 260  on Interpretation:  Land includes among others: “natural resources completely contained on or under the earth surface”. Natural resources are also defined to include mineral, forests etc

[2] Constitution of Kenya, Article 10 ;National values and principles of governance, including participation of the people, transparency, and accountability

[3] Constitution of Kenya, Article 35 ;Right of access to information held by the State and by another person required for the exercise or protection of a right

[4] Constitution of Kenya, Article 42 ;Right to a clean and healthy environment, including the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations.

[5] Constitution of Kenya, Article 69 ;Obligations of the State regarding sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management, and conservation of the environment and natural resources, including public participation in related decision-making processes.

[6] Constitution of Kenya, Article 70 ;Enforcement of environmental rights, including the right to seek court redress where these rights or obligations are violated.

[7] Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), No. 8 of 1999 (Revised Edition 2015), Sections 3, 58–60 which establish environmental rights, require EIAs for projects, and mandate public participation in environmental decision-making.

[8] Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 ;Regulations 7, 9, 16, 21, and 22, which outline the requirement for public participation, disclosure, stakeholder consultations, and community engagement during the EIA process.

[9] Constitution of Kenya, Article 59(1)(e) — Mandates the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights to investigate complaints of human rights violations and to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated.

[10] Mining Act, No. 12 of 2016 — Sections 2 and 4 define artisanal mining as a lawful category of mineral operations; Sections 95–99 establish the Artisanal Mining Permit and outline rights, obligations, and protections for ASM; Section 193 requires the State to promote equitable, transparent and sustainable development of mineral resources, including livelihood considerations.