Four professional and residents’ organisations have opposed the intended prosecution of members of the Nairobi City County Urban Planning Technical Committee (UPTC) over the collapse of Manzil Towers.

In a joint statement shared on Sunday, June 7, 2026, the Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (KARA), Architectural Association of Kenya (AAK), Kenya Institute of Planners (KIP), and Institution of Engineers of Kenya (IEK) called on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to review its decision to charge members of the committee with offences including abuse of office and neglect of official duty.

They argued that the officials being targeted lacked the legal authority to approve or reject developments.

The organisations maintained that while accountability for the tragedy is necessary, prosecuting the entire committee is legally flawed because the UPTC serves only an advisory role in the approval process.

“The UPTC does not hold final decision-making power over planning approvals, structural interventions, development permissions, building permits, or change-of-user applications,” the statement said.

Committee’s limited role

According to the groups, the committee’s role is limited to reviewing development applications and providing technical recommendations to the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) responsible for urban planning, which retains the statutory authority to approve or reject projects.

They argued that recommendations made by the committee are non-binding and can be overruled by executive decision-makers.

“To criminalise the provision of professional, architectural, planning, and engineering advice, in the absence of explicit, individual evidence of fraud, corruption, collusion, or personal gain, sets a highly dangerous precedent,” the statement added.

The organisations further expressed concern over the inclusion of private-sector nominees and civil society representatives in the intended prosecution, saying it wrongly equates advisory participation with executive responsibility.

Public oversight

They warned that such action could discourage professionals from participating in public oversight processes and create fear among technical experts serving in government committees.

“If independent professionals and technical officers are exposed to criminal charges merely for offering consultative opinions, public institutions will struggle to attract competent talent,” the statement said.

The bodies argued that accountability should be directed at individuals and offices that had the legal authority to make final decisions and implement approvals.

“We remain steadfast in our support for lawful urban development, strict development control, and absolute accountability for public safety. However, justice cannot be achieved by misallocating legal culpability. Those who advise cannot be prosecuted as though they were the ultimate decision-makers. ”