A series of health and biosecurity agreements signed between Kenya and the United States over the past decade have come under fresh scrutiny following a controversial plan to establish Ebola-related research and isolation facilities in Kenya.
The agreements, which date back to 2015, are now at the heart of a heated national debate over sovereignty, public participation and the country’s emerging role as a regional health emergency hub.
The controversy intensified after the High Court temporarily stopped plans to establish an Ebola quarantine facility in Nanyuki, Laikipia County, pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by Katiba Institute.
Origins of the Agreement
The foundation of the current dispute can be traced to a biosecurity cooperation agreement signed on July 24, 2015, between Kenya and the United States.
The deal was signed by then Health Cabinet Secretary James Macharia and former United States Ambassador to Kenya Robert Godec before being ratified by the National Assembly in November 2016.
Under the agreement, the two countries committed to cooperating on projects involving biological threats and health security. The framework also provided for additional agreements to be negotiated in the future.
The arrangement granted the United States significant operational authority over projects arising from the partnership, including the selection of contractors and procurement processes.
It also provided tax exemptions for imported project materials and for American personnel working on initiatives covered by the agreement.
In addition, the deal limited legal liability between the two governments in cases involving death, injury or property damage arising from activities conducted under the framework.
The agreement was later extended in April 2022 when then Health Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe and US Chargé d’Affaires Eric Kneedler signed a seven-year renewal that will remain in force until April 2029.
Kenya’s New Foreign Policy
The debate over the proposed Ebola facility has also drawn attention to Kenya’s revised Foreign Policy launched in December 2024.
The policy explicitly seeks to position Kenya as a regional centre for health services, humanitarian response and management of health emergencies.
A section on Global Health Diplomacy outlines Kenya’s intention to strengthen international cooperation in responding to pandemics, disease outbreaks and other public health challenges.
Analysts argue that the policy effectively laid the groundwork for Kenya’s participation in international disease surveillance, outbreak response and health emergency management initiatives.
Under the policy’s “whole-of-government” approach, ministries and state agencies can implement commitments aligned with the policy framework without necessarily seeking fresh parliamentary approval for every action.
Critics, however, have questioned whether the public was adequately informed about the implications of those commitments.
Although the government promised nationwide public awareness campaigns and parliamentary consideration of the policy document, opponents say many Kenyans remain unaware of provisions that could allow the country to host international health emergency facilities.
New Health Partnership
The issue gained further momentum in December 2025 when Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed the Kenya-US Health Cooperation Framework in Washington, DC, witnessed by President William Ruto.
The agreement made Kenya the first country to enter into a government-to-government health partnership under the United States’ America First Global Health Strategy.
Under the arrangement, Washington committed approximately $1.6 billion to support Kenya’s health sector over five years, while Kenya pledged to increase domestic health spending by $850 million during the same period.
The framework directs funding through government institutions rather than non-governmental organizations.
Observers now view the health cooperation pact, together with the biosecurity agreement and Kenya’s revised foreign policy, as key pillars underpinning the proposed Ebola-related facilities.
Court Intervention
The High Court’s decision to suspend the planned facility followed concerns raised by civil society groups over transparency, public participation and potential public health risks.
Katiba Institute argued that the project had been initiated without adequate consultation and sought conservatory orders halting its implementation.
The court granted temporary orders stopping the establishment of the facility until the matter is fully heard.
The ruling was welcomed by several elected leaders from Laikipia County.
Laikipia East MP Mwangi Kiunjuri, Laikipia West MP Wachira Karani, Laikipia North MP Sarah Korere and Woman Representative Jane Kagiri jointly opposed the project, saying they could not justify the establishment of such a facility in the county.
Governor Joshua Irungu also pledged to resist efforts to establish the centre in Laikipia.
Opposition Grows
The controversy has attracted opposition from several professional and legal organizations.
The Law Society of Kenya has called on the government to reject the proposal, while the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists Union (KMPDU) has demanded full disclosure of the agreement’s terms.
KMPDU Secretary-General Dr Davji Atellah accused the government of exposing Kenya to biosecurity risks that other countries are unwilling to assume.
“Kenya is a sovereign republic, not a geopolitical isolation ward. We will not sit back and watch Kenya be treated as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen that we did not generate,” he said.
Former Chief Justice David Maraga has also called for parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements.
Questions Over Risk and Responsibility
The debate has been fuelled by comments from US officials emphasizing that Ebola patients would not be allowed into the United States.
Critics argue that the proposed arrangement effectively shifts some public health risks from American territory to Kenya while providing financial investments and infrastructure support in return.
According to information surrounding the project, the proposed facility would be staffed exclusively by American public health personnel, with Kenyan healthcare workers not directly involved in treating American patients.
American personnel operating under the existing agreements would also continue enjoying tax exemptions granted under the 2015 framework.
Supporters of the partnership argue that Kenya stands to benefit from improved health infrastructure, increased investment and enhanced regional leadership in disease surveillance and emergency response.
However, opponents insist that such decisions require broader public consultation and parliamentary oversight before implementation.
As the legal battle continues, the proposed Ebola facility has become a focal point in a wider debate about Kenya’s role in global health security, the balance between international cooperation and national sovereignty, and the extent to which major policy commitments should be subjected to public scrutiny.
Read:Â Kenya Ramps up Ebola Vigilance as Deadly Outbreak Spreads in Neighbouring Countries
>>>Â Kenya on alert over suspected Ebola case in Kericho
Leave a comment