Griffins Abuora is a Kenya School of Law student based in Kisumu, where he reports on legal, policy, and human rights developments in Kenya for JURIST.
The arrest of five activists in Nairobi on May 12, 2026 during the Africa Forward Summit once again placed Kenya at the centre of a difficult debate: how should a democratic state balance public order and diplomatic interests against the constitutional right to protest? The demonstrations, staged along Uhuru Highway near the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC), targeted France’s growing influence in Africa and criticized Kenya’s deepening ties with Paris. Protesters accused France of perpetuating neo-colonial policies in parts of West and Central Africa, citing instability in the Sahel region, military interventions, and controversial bilateral agreements signed with African governments.
These demonstrations did not emerge in isolation. For years, an anti-France sentiment has intensified across several African states, especially throughout former French colonies Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, where governments and citizens have openly challenged French military and economic influence. France’s withdrawal of troops from some of these countries symbolized a declining grip on the region. Against this background, the Africa Forward Summit, co-hosted by President William Ruto and Emmanuel Macron in Nairobi on May 11 and 12, 2026, became a symbolic target for activists opposed to what they viewed as continued foreign domination disguised as partnership.
The protests also raised a critical constitutional question. Article 37 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every person the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions peacefully and unarmed. However, the State also possesses discretion to maintain security, especially during high-profile international events attended by more than 30 heads of state and global delegates. Kenyan police justified the heavy deployment around KICC and the arrests as necessary to prevent disruption and secure summit venues. Critics, however, argued that the use of tear gas and arrests reflected intolerance toward dissent and undermined democratic freedoms.
Public reaction shows a sharply divided opinion among the people. Some Kenyans supported the government’s actions, insisting that hosting an international summit demanded strict security measures and national decorum. Others defended the activists, arguing that patriotism includes the right to question foreign influence and government policy, even during diplomatic gatherings. On social media and civil society platforms, many viewed the crackdown as evidence of shrinking civic space, while others feared that unchecked demonstrations near summit venues could cause the country to suffer international embarrassment. Ultimately, the incident highlighted the enduring tension between state discretion and constitutional freedoms in a democracy that continues to negotiate its identity on the global stage.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
