Month: April 2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now a pervasive phenomenon in the digital world, offering a wide range of everyday uses. At the same time, AI introduces new and unpredictable risks, including the possible invasion of privacy. This article aims to analyse the implications of AI on data privacy and proposes various approaches to mitigate these risks in a rapidly evolving digital environment.

The Constitutional underpinning of data protection is the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Further, the Data Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) was enacted to give effect to the right to privacy. Under section 37 of the Act, commercial use of data is expressly forbidden except where consent is obtained, the data subject is anonymised, or the use of data is authorised under written law.

Against this backdrop, AI systems typically involve commercial use of data, as it involves gathering, storing, and analysing vast amounts of personal data, to generate appealing output which can be sold to third parties. Therefore, there is need to adopt ethical data management practices aimed at forestalling potential data breaches thereby guaranteeing the secure and responsible use of data.

Key Concern

The era of Big Data – characterised by the surge in data collection, creation, and storage due to the expansion of the internet – is a key enabler of the rapid rise of AI. As AI continues to proliferate globally, it is expected that the demand for data will similarly increase thereby pushing companies to collect more and diverse types of data from data subjects. In their relentless pursuit of vast data collection, these companies may bypass the underlying principles of data protection under section 25 of the Act. Therefore, this largely unchecked collection of data presents distinct privacy risks that transcend individual concerns, escalating to societal-level threats. Furthermore, the Act, although comprehensive, falls short of addressing the complexities of AI development and the consequential privacy issues that arise.

Issues Arising

Predictive AI, which refers to a computer program’s ability to recognize patterns, predict behaviours, and project future events using statistical analysis, relies on vast data sets to conduct advanced pattern analysis. Faced with these demands for data, AI developers like OpenAI have had to seek alternative sources of data to construct and train their models.

Generative AI models can also produce original output that resembles human creativity, such as text, images, music, or code, based on the data they have been trained on. These AI models have captured public attention with their widespread use and have sparked concerns about how they are trained, particularly regarding the data they use and the potential privacy risks associated with interacting with them.

A major issue with these AI models is a lack of transparency around how companies acquire their training data, leading to significant privacy concerns. Real-life examples demonstrating the privacy risks posed by AI systems include the following:

• In 2024, a group of eight (8) newspapers sued ChatGPT maker OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing the tech giants of unlawfully using millions of copyrighted news articles without authorization or compensation to train their AI chatbots.
• In 2024, a YouTuber sued OpenAI for transcribing and using his videos to train its artificial intelligence system.
• Closer home, Vodacom Tanzania was sued in a USD 4.3 Million lawsuit by Sayida Masanja, a businessman, who claimed that the telecom operator fed his personal information to OpenAI’s ChatGPT without his consent thereby infringing his privacy.

As AI technologies advance, new avenues for privacy violations are emerging, such as the potential for generative AI systems to infer personal information about individuals or allow users to target others by generating defamatory or impersonating content. As such, there is a likelihood of future product liability lawsuits by data subjects in Kenya being instituted against AI developers like OpenAI. Further, the data gathered can be exploited to deliberately target individuals for identity theft, fraud, and other cybercrimes. These systems also produce predictive or creative outputs which, through relational inferences, can affect people who were not part of the training datasets or who may have never used these systems. Research shows that when personal, confidential, or legally protected data is included in training datasets, AI systems can retain and later reveal this data as part of their outputs.

As technology becomes increasingly intertwined with our lives, automated systems based on group membership can amplify social biases and stereotypes, leading to adverse decisional outcomes for large segments of the population. People often engage with systems that they may not perceive as highly technical, such as applying for a job, yet AI algorithms may influence whether their applications are reviewed. Another example of how pervasive AI has become is in the healthcare sector where AI systems are increasingly being utilised to analyse patient data as well as support both diagnosis and treatment. These systems collect and examine sensitive medical information, which necessitates robust safeguards to maintain patient privacy.

Given the challenges AI poses to data privacy, as outlined above, it is concerning that we currently rely on AI companies to remove personal information from their training data. Despite the data subject’s rights to erasure and to be forgotten, developers can resist such requests by claiming that the provenance of the data used in training AI cannot be proven – or by ignoring the requests altogether. What is needed is a shift towards ensuring that data collection for AI training aligns with the principles of data protection enshrined under the Act.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Currently, Kenya lacks a dedicated or specific AI legal and regulatory framework. However, several existing regulations and initiatives are pertinent to AI development and usage. The Act serves as a foundational legislative piece for safeguarding data in Kenya.

Additionally, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 addresses offences related to digital platforms, which could encompass malicious applications of AI within the country.

In 2018, the Kenyan government also established the Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence Task Force which investigated the potential of AI in the public sector and recommended the creation of an AI policy and regulatory framework for Kenya.

While these measures represent significant progress in mitigating the risks associated with unrestrained data collection and commercialization, the following recommendations can further support AI compliance with data privacy standards:

1. i) Implementing legal frameworks that regulate data intermediaries, that is, data controllers and processors. This can serve as a robust governance mechanism, establishing third parties with clearly defined fiduciary responsibilities aimed at protecting the interests

of data subjects. The rationale behind data intermediaries is that an exclusive focus on individual privacy rights may be too narrow, necessitating a more comprehensive and collective approach to data governance. In the case of Large Language Model training – that refers to trained AI models such as ChatGPT – huge datasets are collected and generated, and it would be arduous for each individual linked to this data to negotiate for their data rights. Data intermediaries then come in to give a collective solution as they would play a big role in mediating the relationship between individuals and companies. These entities would function as cooperatives that aggregate data from various sources thereby solving the challenge relating to the volume of consents required in this situation. They would be tasked with managing access to this data in a way that aligns with the values and priorities of the data subjects, ensuring that their interests are safeguarded throughout the AI development process (i.e., through licensing agreements).

1. ii) Enactment of the proposed Kenya Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Bill, 2023 as well as implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Code of Practice. These dual regimes would collaborate to advance the responsible and ethical development of AI technologies by providing clear guidelines for organisations. These guidelines would emphasise transparency, explainability, and controllability in AI systems. A robust legislative and regulatory framework will define the responsibilities of AI stakeholders throughout the AI lifecycle, requiring organisations to disclose AI data sources and mitigate risks, particularly those related to data breaches. AI providers will be responsible for monitoring operations, overseeing model development and updates, assessing user and community impacts, and ensuring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

iii) Adopting a supply-chain approach to data privacy. AI is pegged on the training of data pieces or data input which influences the AI output. This necessitates the need to ensure data set accountability and transparency all through its lifecycle from input to output, thereby broadly looking at the entire data ecosystem that feeds AI to ensure compliance. It is therefore essential to embed data protection throughout the entire lifecycle of technologies used to train AI models, ensuring that personal data is automatically safeguarded within these systems.

Following its promulgation, the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (the Constitution), has been hailed as being transformative and progressive. In this regard, one of the notable transformations that the Constitution has brought about is the guarantee of access to justice as provided for under Article 48.

The Constitution also clearly sets out judicial authority and outlines its limits under Article 159 and further lays out the guiding principles for the Courts to adhere to in exercising this authority— that justice is to be administered to all irrespective of status; justice is not to be delayed; alternative forms of dispute resolution are to be encouraged; and justice is to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.

This latter edict, that justice is to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, has sparked significant debate and controversy given that there have been numerous instances where litigants have seemingly thrown procedural rules and constraints to the wind and nonetheless expected favourable outcomes on the substance of the dispute. This issue was addressed in Raila Odinga & 5 Others v IEBC & Others (2013) eKLR, in which the Court had this to say on the effect of Article 159 of the Constitution:

“Our attention has repeatedly been drawn to the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which obliges a court of law to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The operative words are the ones we have rendered in bold. The Article simply means that a Court of law should not pay undue attention to procedural requirements at the expense of substantive justice. It was never meant to oust the obligation of litigants to comply with procedural imperatives as they seek justice from the Courts of law …”

The Courts have continued to demonstrate that a fallback on Article 159 is not always the legal panacea one might expect. On the forefront of upholding this position is the Judicial Review Division of the High Court, which in recent decisions has come to be the shielding grace to litigants who may have been shortchanged as a result of an administrative decision or action taken by a body in authority on account of substantive justice where procedure has not been accorded much regard.

Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the authority vested in the Courts in appropriate proceedings before it, to declare a decision or action by an authoritative body either contrary to, or in accordance with the Constitution or other governing law with the effect of rendering the decision invalid or vindicating its validity. Put simply, it gives effect to the Constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Judicial Review is primarily concerned with the decision-making process and as such, when Courts conduct Judicial Review proceedings, they are in essence ensuring that the decisions made by the relevant bodies in authority are lawful. Consequently, should the Courts find that a decision made by a body is unlawful (be it for reasons such as disregarding procedural technicalities), then the Courts can set aside that decision. The role of the Court is therefore supervisory, and the Court is refrained from delving into a merit review or adopting an appellate approach – which is ordinarily not the function of Judicial Review.

Consolidated Cases

In recently decided consolidated Judicial Review cases, the Court has upheld and enhanced the position that adherence to statutory procedural requirements is not a mere suggestion, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution. The backdrop against which these Judicial Review proceedings were filed were historical land injustices alleged to have been suffered by the applicants.

In ELC JR No. 3 of 2020 (R v National Land Commission & 3 Others ex parte James Finlay’s Kenya Ltd & Others) it was the Kenya Tea Growers Association’s (KTGA) case that the National Land Commission (the NLC) in seeking to address the historical land injustice claims lodged on behalf of the communities in the area by the County Governments of Kericho and Bomet, had not adhered to the procedural dictates outlined in section 15 of the National Land Commission Act (NLC Act), and further that the NLC had not granted KTGA an opportunity to be heard.

In ELC JR No. 4 of 2020 (R v National Land Commission & 2 Others ex parte Kakuzi PLC) Kakuzi PLC (Kakuzi) sought Judicial Review relief on the grounds that it carries out intense agricultural activities on the suit properties in question and that the NLC sometime in 2018 served them with a hearing notice in respect of the historical land injustice claims relating to the said parcels of land. Kakuzi sought and was granted interim conservatory orders staying the historical land injustice proceedings which the NLC was conducting. The NLC nonetheless proceeded with the hearings and gazetted recommendations arising therefrom.

In ELC JR No. 5 of 2020 (R v National Land Commission & 2 Others ex parte Eastern Produce Kenya Limited) Eastern Produce Kenya Limited (Eastern Produce), sought Judicial Review Orders on the grounds that the NLC gazetted recommendations arising from a historical land injustice complaint by Kimasas Farmers Co-operative Society against Eastern Produce (Kimasas).

According to Eastern Produce, the effect of the recommendations by the NLC was that various sub-divisions done by Eastern Produce were done illegally and should be cancelled, with the land parcel in question being allocated to Kimasas. These recommendations were to be implemented by the Chief Lands Registrar and the Ministry of Lands.

The common thread arising in these consolidated cases was the historical land injustices meted upon the residents living within the respective areas, which the NLC sought to remedy. The Court found that the NLC indeed had the mandate to adjudicate upon historical land injustices as per section 15 of the NLC Act. However, what was in dispute was the manner and procedure through which NLC conducted these proceedings.

It was contended by the applicants in all three (3) cases that the NLC carried out the respective historical land injustice proceedings without issuing them with due notice to attend and participate in the proceedings and without affording them an opportunity to appear before the NLC and as such, the proceedings were devoid of procedural soundness with respect to guaranteeing fair administrative action. The applicants therefore approached the Court seeking Judicial Review remedies as against the recommendations gazetted by the NLC premised on the fact that in conducting the proceedings, it failed to adhere to procedural dictates outlined in the NLC Act.

In determining the degree of procedural fairness required, the Court assessed the nature of the decision being made, and the process followed in making it. The NLC in conducting the historical land injustice proceedings notwithstanding their recommendations, sought to remedy long-standing land injustices affecting the residents in the areas. What therefore arises is a substantive justice aspect in remedying historical land injustices being pitted against procedural requisites.

The Court thus assessed the procedure followed and whether it met the standard for procedural fairness and found that in all the proceedings conducted, the NLC did not adhere to the dictates of procedural fairness. As such, the Court proceeded to grant the Judicial Review orders sought, including quashing the decisions of the NLC.

In so doing, the Court stated that from the onset, there was no evidence of notification to the applicant to attend the hearings which the Court held to be contrary to the NLC Act, Article 47 of the Constitution and section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. It stated that whereas the nature of the NLC’s mandate with respect to historical land injustices was more investigative than adversarial, it did not take away the need to notify any party to the proceedings and allow it an opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so amounted to a grave procedural violation of the right to fair administrative action and rendered the decision arising out of the proceedings a nullity.

The preceding discussion highlights that Courts are not shy to find in favour of a litigant who has been subjected to proceedings in which procedural fairness has seemingly been sacrificed at the altar of substantive justice. While empathy may be extended to those who have experienced historical land injustices, the NLC holds a paramount obligation to uphold procedural fairness when addressing such matters.

Upshot

As was stated by the Court in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 6 Others (2013) eKLR, Article 159 of the Constitution, which commands Courts to seek to render substantive justice, was not meant to aid in the destruction of rules of procedure and create an anarchial free-for-all in the administration of justice. The rules and timelines serve to make the process of judicial adjudication and determination fair, just, certain, and even-handed.

Litigants are therefore duty-bound to pay attention and adhere to procedural dictates in the course of their respective cases and ought to beware that a reliance on Article 159 of the Constitution can only come to assist litigants who have themselves adhered to the rules and procedures set to aid in the administration of justice.

While it is trite that all admissible evidence must be relevant, is it the case that all relevant evidence must be admitted? In this article, we embark on a discussion on what is considered illegally obtained evidence under Kenyan law in civil cases and how the Supreme Court has treated illegally obtained evidence in recent decisions.

The Common Law Position

Prior to the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (the Constitution), Kenyan Courts largely looked to common law on how to deal with illegally obtained evidence in civil cases. At common law, there was no prohibition on adducing any evidence before a court of law, provided that it was relevant to the matters in controversy.

Summing up this position is the holding of the Privy Council in the case of Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The Queen (1955) AC 197 where it was held “…the test to be applied both in civil and in criminal cases in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the Court is not concerned with how it was obtained.” The position of the Privy Council in the Kuruma case relied upon the decision in Reg. v Leatham (1861) 8 Cox C.C.C 498 where it was iterated rather starkly, “It matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.”

Similarly in Helliwell v Piggot-Sims (1980) FSR 356 it was held that “…so far as civil cases are concerned, it seems to me that the Judge has no discretion. The evidence is relevant and admissible. The Judge cannot refuse it on the ground that it may have been unlawfully obtained in the beginning.”

The Supreme Court of the United States of America also had an opportunity to weigh in on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in the case of Olmstead v United States (1928) 277 US 438 where it held “…the common law did not reject relevant evidence on the ground that it had been obtained illegally.”

The position set out in the foregoing authorities, i.e., that all relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, has formed the basis of many decisions by Kenyan Courts on the issue of illegally obtained evidence in civil cases, at least until the year 2010.

The promulgation of the Constitution however brought in a different perspective on the issue of illegally obtained evidence. In particular, the Constitution provides as follows in Article 50 (4):

“Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.”

This provision departs from the common law position by providing exceptions to the rule that all evidence, if relevant, is admissible.

Supreme Court Decisions

We now consider two (2) decisions of note handed down by the Kenyan Supreme Court in which the Court considered the issue of illegally obtained evidence with respect to public documents being Njonjo Mue & Another v Chairperson of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others (2017) eKLR (the Njonjo Mue case) and Kenya Railways Corporation, the Attorney General and The Public Procurement Oversight Authority v Okiyah Omtatah Okoiti, Wyclife Gisebe Nyakini, The Law Society of Kenya and China Road and Bridge Corporation (2023) eKLR (the SGR case).

The Njonjo Mue Case

The Njonjo Mue case was a Presidential Election Petition which sought to challenge the results of the Presidential Election held on 26th October 2017, whereby the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) declared H. E. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta the President elect. In urging their case, the Petitioners sought to rely on internal memos (the Memos) sent to the Commissioners and staff members of the IEBC. H. E. Kenyatta filed an application urging the Court to expunge the Memos from the Petition, on the basis that the documents had been illegally obtained.

In so contending, H. E. Kenyatta argued that the IEBC had issued a clarification indicating that the contents of the Memos were neither discussed nor sanctioned by it and that it only came to know about the Memos from the media. It was further contended that the Memos raised matters which were yet to be resolved by the IEBC, were not authenticated, were produced in piecemeal and taken out of context, with a view to aid the Petitioners’ case.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court considered that “…information held by the State or State organs, unless for very exceptional circumstances, ought to be freely shared with the public. However, such information should flow from the custodian of such information to the recipients in a manner recognized under the law without undue restriction to access of any such information.” The Supreme Court ultimately made a finding that the Petitioners had failed to account for how they accessed the Memos and had breached the provisions of sections 27 of the IEBC Act and Articles 24 (1) and 35 (1) of the Constitution, pertaining to access to information. As such, the Memos were expunged from the Petition.

The SGR Case

The SGR case is the Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on the issue of illegally obtained evidence. This case commenced in the High Court where Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, Wyclife Gisebe Nyakina and the Law Society of Kenya (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Petitioners) filed Petitions against the Kenya Railways Corporation, the Attorney General, the Public Procurement Oversight Authority and China Road and Bridge Corporation (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents)

challenging the procurement process for the construction of the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) contending inter alia that the single sourcing or direct procurement for SGR was illegal and that the entire procurement process run afoul various sections of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act of 2005 (PPDA) and the Public Finance Management Act, 2012. Of relevance to this article, is that the petitioners sought to rely on various correspondence between officers of government institutions, the financier of the SGR Project, the 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents, and the Office of the Deputy President (the Correspondence). The Respondents filed a Cross-Petition seeking inter alia the expungement of the Correspondence contending that their production was contrary to Articles 31 and 35 of the Constitution, and section 80 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 80) Laws of Kenya.

After hearing the Petitions, Lenaola, J (as he then was) dismissed the Petition and allowed the Cross-Petition to the extent of expunging the Correspondence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s finding on the issue of inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the Petition to the extent of declaring that the 1st Respondent had failed to comply with Article 227 (1) of the Constitution and sections 6 (1) and 29 of the PPDA.

Finding themselves partially aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Respondents filed Petitions of Appeal in the Supreme Court. In response, the 1st and 2nd Petitioners filed a Cross-Appeal challenging the Court of Appeal’s findings, notably the decision to expunge the Correspondence. In defending their position, the 1^st and 2nd Petitioners intimated that they obtained the Correspondence from whistleblowers who feared for their safety and thus required anonymity in exchange for providing the highly confidential documents. The Supreme Court found this reason unacceptable, citing the existence of bodies such as the Witness Protection Agency (under section 3A of the Witness Protection Act, 2006) that would have protected the whistleblowers had they provided the Correspondence through the right channels. Further, the explanation was found wanting as it was bereft of details.

Interestingly, some of the Correspondence consisted of documents tabled before Parliament and were being debated in some of Parliament’s committees. This, according to the 1st Petitioner, made the impugned documents public documents. However, citing Parliamentary privilege and the power of Parliament to call for evidence including documents under Article 125 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the impugned documents did not mutate into public documents for this reason, and would thus remain inadmissible.

Conclusion

In a marked departure from the previously prevailing common law position that freely allowed for adducing of relevant evidence no matter how it was obtained, the position of Kenyan Courts, as pronounced by the Supreme Court in the foregoing decisions, is that the production of illegally obtained evidence in Court is prohibited, more so in the case of public documents that are produced in violation of the law. It thus appears that in balancing the competing interests, the Court lends greater weight to safeguarding procedural fairness than what the probative value of the evidence might be. The message from the Supreme Court may thus be aptly summarized thus: The Courts will not look favourably upon a litigant who rushes to Court alleging the violation of the Constitution while relying on evidence obtained in violation of the very same Constitution.

Now in its third year, the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run has emerged as a cherished event, eagerly anticipated by the community it has built. Held on 21st September 2024, in the lush settings of the Karura Forest, this year’s run not only celebrated our collective achievements in raising awareness about mangrove conservation but also reflected on the remarkable journey we have undertaken thus far, together. As participants laced up their sneakers and took to the picturesque trails, the atmosphere was charged with purpose, reminding us that each step taken is not merely an act of fitness but a stride toward a more sustainable and hopeful future.

The 2024 Theme: ‘The Power of Mangroves’

Mangrove forests are vital to coastal resilience, serving as natural buffers against storm surges and significantly mitigating the impacts of cyclones and hurricanes. Their intricate root systems filter pollutants and enhance water quality, benefiting both marine life and the local communities reliant on clean water. Additionally, mangroves are biodiversity hotspots, supporting a diverse array of species, including commercially important fish. Protecting these ecosystems is essential for preserving rich biodiversity and preventing habitat loss. Furthermore, mangrove conservation empowers local communities by providing sustainable livelihoods, particularly through fishing, making it a crucial element in the fight for environmental sustainability.

Vanga Blue Forest – The 2024 Beneficiaries

This year, the proceeds from the run will support Vanga Blue Forest, a vital community-led mangrove conservation and restoration project located in southern Kenya.

Vanga Blue Forest was developed when the communities of Vanga, Jimbo, and Kiwegu recognized the benefits that its sister project, Mikoko Pamoja, brought to local people and the environment. Launched in 2019, Vanga Blue Forest aims to provide long-term incentives for mangrove protection and restoration through active community involvement.

Governed by the Vanga, Jimbo, and Kiwegu Community Forest Association (VAJIKI CFA), this initiative aims to protect and restore 460 hectares of mangroves, including the stunning mangroves of Sii Island. The Association for Coastal Ecosystem Services, a registered charity in Scotland, acts as the project coordinator. Vanga Blue Forest significantly contributes to combating climate change by capturing and storing over 5,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Additionally, the project prioritizes reforesting areas previously cleared for salt pans and establishing timber nurseries to address local needs, fostering both environmental restoration and community resilience.

Reflecting on Three Years of the Ozone Run 

2022: The Inaugural Run

In 2022, Oraro & Company Advocates made a significant commitment to environmental stewardship by launching the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run, a flagship initiative aimed at contributing towards global efforts in combating climate change. Partnering with Ngong Road Forest Sanctuary, the inaugural event celebrated World Ozone Day by raising awareness about the impacts of deforestation. This inaugural run not only highlighted the critical importance of reforestation and conservation but also reaffirmed the firm’s commitment to environmental protection, successfully raising funds for the planting of 1,100 indigenous tree seedlings in the sanctuary.

2023: A Commitment to Beat Plastic Pollution

In 2023, aligning with the global call to action for World Environment Day under the theme #BeatPlasticPollution, we proudly presented the second edition of the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run, dedicated to combating one of the gravest environmental challenges of our time. By inviting various stakeholders to participate, we created a platform for collective action in the movement to reduce plastic waste and protect our ecosystems. This year’s run aimed to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of plastic pollution – its contamination of water bodies and harm to marine life – while also addressing its significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

The funds raised from this run benefited Gjenge Makers, enabling them to purchase a crusher that significantly enhanced their production capacity of cabro blocks made from recycled plastic. This investment allows them to expand their innovative work in creating sustainable building materials from recycled plastic waste, amplifying their positive impact on both the environment and local communities. By boosting their capabilities, Gjenge Makers is now better equipped to tackle plastic pollution while providing solutions that contribute to a greener future.

2024: A Wave of Mangrove Action

In 2024, we rode the tide of community spirit with the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run, themed ‘Protecting Our Shores: The Power of Mangrove Trees.’ This year’s event powerfully underscored the essential role that mangroves play in safeguarding coastal ecosystems and mitigating climate change. As participants fully immersed themselves in the experience, they responded to the urgent call for marine conservation, emphasizing the significance of these natural buffers that protect shorelines and promote biodiversity.

By raising awareness of the critical benefits of mangrove restoration, we united runners, colleagues, clients, families, and environmental advocates in a shared mission to keep our shores vibrant and resilient. Together, we demonstrated that collective action makes waves in the fight for a sustainable future.

A Heartfelt Thank You

To all our participants, sponsors, clients, colleagues, family, friends and vendors we extend our deepest gratitude for your unwavering support throughout the years. Your commitment to the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run has been instrumental in driving our mission forward and raising awareness about critical environmental issues. Each step you took, every donation made, and all the encouragement shared have collectively created a powerful ripple effect. Together, we are not just participants, donors or service providers; we are champions of a cause that transcends distance and time. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey toward a more sustainable future. Your involvement inspires us to strive for greater heights and make a lasting impact for generations to come.

Looking Ahead

As we look to the future, the Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run is committed to evolving and expanding its impact. We invite everyone to continue this journey with us. Together, we can continue to amplify our voices, joining other active local and global voices in creating a movement that emphasizes the importance of a sustainable future.

Remaining Committed

The Oraro & Co. for the Ozone Run has transformed into more than just an annual event; it is a testament to what can be achieved when a community comes together for a common cause. As we celebrate the successes of the past three years, we remain committed to raising awareness about ozone issues and fostering a healthier environment for all. With every step we take, we move closer to a future where clean air and thriving ecosystems are a reality for generations to come. Let’s continue this journey together – breathe easy, live green.