Sometimes the fear of a disease spreads faster than the disease itself. In Kenya, where not a single case of Ebola has been recorded to date, plans for a US-backed quarantine centre have already led to legal challenges, protests, accusations of government secrecy and two deaths during clashes in Nanyuki.

For the time being, the only thing that is certain is that there is no Ebola in Kenya. This is reiterated by President William Ruto, confirmed by official data and evidenced by the intensive screening system in place at the country’s entry points, where around 3,000 travellers are screened every day.
Yet the virus continues to dominate the national public debate, amid protests and, sadly, two fatalities – not from the virus, but from the street protests.
At the heart of the controversy is the plan for a 50-bed quarantine and public health emergency preparedness facility within the Laikipia military airbase, an initiative supported by the United States which, according to President Ruto, arose from a direct request by US President Donald Trump as part of the historic health cooperation between Washington and Nairobi.
For the government, it is simply a prevention centre, one of twenty-three already existing in the country, intended for use in the event of future epidemiological emergencies. For many citizens, however, the issue appears far less straightforward.
The High Court of Kenya has in fact extended the injunctions blocking any activity linked to the facility. Judge Patricia Nyaundi has prohibited the government from establishing, authorising or operating the facility until the conclusion of the legal proceedings brought by the Katiba Institute. Not only that. Within seven days, the government must make public the agreements, protocols, risk assessments and all documentation relating to the disputed agreement.
According to the Katiba Institute, the project was negotiated without adequate public participation and raises questions regarding biosecurity, national sovereignty and compliance with constitutional procedures. Among the most widespread concerns is that the facility might be used primarily for US citizens who may have been exposed to the virus.
Ruto rejects all accusations. The president maintains that Kenya has a duty to prepare for potential health emergencies, particularly given the presence of Kenyan military personnel and citizens in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the virus continues to flare up periodically. ‘A responsible government must be ready before the problem arises,’ is essentially the message put forward by the head of state.
But whilst lawyers and judges debate in the courtrooms, tensions have flared on the streets of Nanyuki, the town closest to the Laikipia military base. In recent days, hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against the project, convinced that the presence of a facility dedicated to Ebola could turn the area into a potential risk for local communities. The protests have escalated into clashes and, according to the BBC, two people have died after being shot. One of the victims is reported to have been shot whilst returning home after closing his shop. The exact circumstances of the deaths are still under investigation.
Thus, Kenya now finds itself facing a typically African paradox: an absent disease producing very real effects. On the one hand, a government calling for prevention and international cooperation; on the other, citizens demanding transparency and guarantees. In the middle, a court called upon to decide whether that facility represents a necessary safeguard for the future or an agreement concluded too hastily and explained too little.
Meanwhile, Ebola remains across the border. But the debate it has sparked continues to infect the streets, politics and the Kenyan justice system.