First came the warnings that Ebola was re-emerging in Central Africa. Then came reassurances from the Kenyan Ministry of Health that all suspected cases identified in the country had tested negative. Now, a ruling by the High Court in Nairobi seems to be saying one very simple thing: Kenya is prepared to guard against the virus, but has no intention of becoming the rest of the world’s isolation ward.

In normal times, this would have seemed like the plot of a tropical geopolitical novel. The United States looking for a safe place to isolate any of its citizens infected with Ebola, Kenya ending up among the possible candidates, and a judge in Nairobi raising the red card. Instead, it is the news of the day, and it tells us much more about the fears aroused by a disease that continues to conjure up apocalyptic scenarios far beyond the actual number of cases.

Rumours are coming out of Washington. Judgements are coming out of Nairobi. And in the middle of it all is Ebola, a word that in Africa is still enough to empty airports, fill WhatsApp groups with improbable theories and send shivers down the spines of governments and ministries. This time, however, Kenya has decided to act pre-emptively, putting a stop – at least for now – to any project that might turn it into an international hub for managing potential foreign health emergencies.

The High Court in Nairobi has temporarily barred the Kenyan government from establishing or operating Ebola-related quarantine, isolation or treatment facilities under agreements with the United States or any other foreign government. The decision follows a petition filed against the possible establishment of such facilities on Kenyan soil and will remain in force at least until the case has been thoroughly examined.

The news is particularly significant because it coincides with reports from the United States suggesting that the Trump administration is considering asking Kenya to host facilities for the isolation of American citizens who might contract the virus or show symptoms whilst in East and Central Africa.

For the time being, there is no official confirmation of an agreement already signed between the two governments. But the mere suspicion that Kenya might become a sort of international health outpost was enough to trigger legal challenges and political controversy.

The Court itself, whilst blocking any such initiative, has not, however, urged the country to lower its guard. On the contrary, it has asked the Ministry of Health to strengthen control measures, verify the preparedness of national healthcare facilities and ensure that Kenya is ready to deal with any cases of Ebola should they arise.

An important distinction. Preparing to protect one’s own citizens is one thing. Turning into a quarantine centre for foreign nationals is quite another. And it is precisely on this distinction that much of the sensitivity of Kenyan public opinion seems to rest.

The debate has arisen at a time when regional attention has returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, where health systems continue to monitor possible outbreaks and cross-border movements of people from areas considered most at risk. Kenya, thanks in part to checks at airports and border posts, has so far managed to keep its territory free of confirmed cases.

Yet the fear remains. Not so much because of the statistical likelihood of infection, but because of the symbolic weight that Ebola continues to carry in the collective imagination of both Africa and the West. A disease that rarely appears but which, when it does, seems capable of overwhelming all sense of proportion.

This is why the High Court’s decision has implications that go beyond public health. It is also a matter of sovereignty. In other words, Kenya agrees to strengthen its defences, but does not want anyone from abroad to decide to use the country as a biological waiting room for other people’s emergencies. And whilst the judges examine the case and governments avoid making overly explicit statements, one thing is already clear: between the fear of the virus and the fear of becoming its custodian on behalf of others, Kenyans seem to have chosen which of the two risks they consider less acceptable.

In the video on our YouTube channel, further information and considerations

https://youtu.be/YS3l8TRZy88