Nairobi’s Hard Line on Vandalism Signals a Shift from Repair to Prevention

By Kepher Otieno - Reporter

Kenya, 25 January 2026 - Nairobi City County Government’s latest warning against vandalism is more than routine law-and-order talk; it reflects a growing frustration within City Hall over the silent sabotage of urban development and a strategic shift toward prevention, enforcement, and citizen co-ownership of public infrastructure.

When Mobility and Works CECM Ibrahim Auma addressed a sectoral meeting this week, his message was blunt: vandals will be arrested and held accountable. In a city where freshly laid cabro pavements are sometimes uprooted overnight and street furniture disappears almost as fast as it is installed, the declaration marks an attempt to draw a clear line between development and destruction.

“We have taken a firm position that anyone found vandalising public infrastructure will be arrested and prosecuted,” Auma said.

“Public assets are built using taxpayers’ money, and we will not allow a few individuals to sabotage projects meant to benefit millions of Nairobi residents,” he added.

Auma noted that the county had strengthened enforcement by working closely with security agencies, saying “we have seconded police officers to work with our specialised anti-vandalism units to ensure rapid response and accountability.”

He stressed that enforcement alone was not enough, arguing that “protecting public infrastructure is a shared responsibility between the county government and the citizens.”

“We are calling on residents to report acts of vandalism and help us identify those involved, because safeguarding our roads, walkways and public spaces starts at the community level,” Auma said.

Emphasising the development impact, he added: “When infrastructure is vandalised, it is ordinary citizens who suffer through unsafe walkways, damaged roads and delayed projects.”

For years, Nairobi’s infrastructure challenge has not been limited to funding gaps or poor planning. Vandalism—often treated as a minor nuisance—has quietly inflated maintenance costs, delayed projects, and undermined public confidence in the county government’s ability to deliver lasting change. Walkways meant to improve pedestrian safety are stripped of metal parts, drainage covers vanish, and road signage is routinely damaged, exposing residents to avoidable risks.

More from Kenya

Opinion-Somaliland Recognition Crisis: Lessons from Harrar and Policy Directions (2-3)

PROFILE: Inside the Rise and Fall of Al-Shabaab’s Finance Chief

In seconding police officers to work directly with county-led, multi-agency anti-vandalism units, the county government is signalling that vandalism is no longer a peripheral issue but a core governance concern. The move embeds law enforcement within technical departments, shortening response times and improving surveillance in areas deemed vulnerable. This approach mirrors a broader national trend where counties increasingly rely on inter-agency collaboration to enforce compliance, rather than leaving departments to work in isolation.

However, enforcement alone has historically yielded limited success. Nairobi’s past crackdowns have often fizzled out once public attention waned. What distinguishes the current strategy is its emphasis on citizen participation. By urging residents to report acts of vandalism and identify perpetrators, the county is reframing public infrastructure as a shared asset rather than distant government property.

This community-based approach carries both promise and risk. On the positive side, residents are often the first witnesses when vandalism occurs, particularly in informal settlements and high-traffic urban corridors. Their involvement could dramatically improve early detection and deterrence. On the other hand, it requires trust—trust that reports will be acted upon, and that whistleblowers will not face retaliation or bureaucratic indifference.

Mr Auma’s remarks suggest the county is keenly aware of this balance. He framed citizen involvement not as surveillance but as partnership, linking the protection of infrastructure directly to everyday benefits: safer pedestrian walkways, functional roads, and public spaces that actually serve their intended purpose. In a city where many residents feel disconnected from government projects, this framing could help rebuild a sense of ownership.

The timing of the crackdown is also significant. Nairobi is in the middle of multiple mobility-focused interventions aimed at easing congestion, improving non-motorised transport, and modernising road networks. These projects are capital-intensive and politically visible. Repeated vandalism not only drains county resources but also hands critics ammunition to question the viability of urban renewal efforts.

Still, questions remain about sustainability. Will the specialised anti-vandalism units be adequately funded and staffed in the long term? Can the county maintain momentum once initial arrests are made? And crucially, will the justice system impose penalties strong enough to deter repeat offenders, or will cases quietly collapse?

Nairobi’s firm stance against vandalism reflects a broader recognition that development is not just about building new infrastructure, but about protecting what already exists. In combining enforcement, inter-agency coordination, and citizen engagement, the county government is attempting to move from a cycle of repair and replacement to one of preservation.

Whether this strategy succeeds will depend less on the strength of the warning and more on consistent action. For a city grappling with rapid urbanisation and limited resources, safeguarding infrastructure may prove just as important as constructing it in the first place.