For once, it seems that activists and human rights organisations have won. No patients infected with Ebola – or suspected of having it – will arrive in Kenya from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly not the Americans who had begun to fund and equip an emergency and treatment centre for their compatriots near Nanyuki, in Laikipia County, north of Nairobi. Demonstrations, protests and, above all, a petition to the High Court have brought the whole thing to a halt, and yesterday the Kenyan Minister of Health, Aden Duale, confirmed that the most recent case of Ebola – involving a US citizen, a missionary serving in Bunia, one of the epicentres of the Bundibugyo strain outbreak which has already claimed over 700 lives – had been transferred to Germany rather than to the Kenyan facility. “As the court has halted work, the centre for Ebola patients is not operational,” admitted Duale.

The Kenyan government has thus avoided what threatened to become one of the most controversial chapters in its health cooperation with the United States. The project involved the construction, within the military airbase near Nanyuki, of a high-biosecurity facility intended exclusively for US citizens infected with or exposed to the Ebola virus whilst carrying out humanitarian operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Washington had allocated some $13.5 million to fund the centre and provide it with its own staff and equipment.
However, the choice of Kenya as a healthcare hub had provoked a fierce backlash from the outset. Civil rights organisations, led by the Katiba Institute and supported by the Law Society of Kenya, had denounced the total lack of public consultation, whilst also challenging the constitutionality of an agreement whose details had never been explained to the public. Doctors and nurses had expressed serious concerns, whilst in Nanyuki thousands of people had taken to the streets, fearing not only a health risk but also severe repercussions for the local economy, tourism and Kenya’s image. The protests had escalated into clashes with the police, resulting in two confirmed deaths and dozens of arrests.
The turning point came with the High Court’s intervention, which not only suspended construction of the centre but also prohibited the government from authorising the entry into the country of people infected with or suspected of having Ebola under the agreement with the United States, at least until the conclusion of the legal proceedings.
For this reason, the transfer of the American missionary infected in Bunia to a specialist facility in Germany takes on a significance that goes beyond the individual clinical case. It demonstrates that viable alternatives exist and that Kenya is not destined to become, as many had claimed, the ‘infectious diseases ward’ for other nations.
The incident nevertheless leaves several questions unanswered. The Ebola outbreak in the DRC continues to represent one of the most serious health emergencies on the African continent, with over 700 deaths and thousands of recorded cases, whilst Kenya remains on high alert at its borders, in international airports and at major points of entry. The Ministry of Health has reiterated that the country will continue to prepare for a potential emergency, whilst focusing its efforts on protecting the Kenyan population and strengthening national response capabilities.
For many observers, this incident also sets an important precedent in terms of democracy. In a country where major decisions are often taken without any real involvement of civil society, it was precisely public pressure, together with the intervention of the judiciary, that forced the government to backtrack. A victory that activists describe not as a victory against international cooperation, but in favour of transparency, national sovereignty and the right of citizens to be informed when such sensitive issues are at stake.