Justice Nyaundi of Nairobi’s Milimani High Court on May 29, 2026 issued an urgent conservatory order suspending any move to establish the planned US-backed Ebola quarantine centre. The conservatory order was granted following a petition by the Katiba Institute, barring officials from opening or approving the facility until the case is fully heard before the Court. Katiba’s petition warned that the secretive deal with the US poses grave and imminent risks to public health, constitutional governance, and national sovereignty. It argued that without transparency, public participation, or parliamentary oversight, Kenya could effectively become a containment zone for foreign disease control.
Katiba’s filing came amid growing backlash over the plan. US sources reported that the Kenyan government agreed to host a quarantine site at an air force base in Laikipia for Americans exposed to Ebola from the Congo outbreak. Kenya’s government says it is discussing broader Ebola response cooperation, but civil groups say details are opaque. The Katiba petition and High Court order follow reports that Kenya only agreed on the condition the facility would be open to people of all nationalities—not just Americans. Even before the court ruling, many Kenyans reacted strongly on social media and in press. The secretary-general of the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union (KMPDU), Dr. Davji Bhimji Atellah, posted that “Kenya is a sovereign republic, not a geopolitical isolation ward,” echoing widespread concern that Kenya should not become an offshore quarantine hub for foreign patients.
Doctors and public health experts joined the criticism. The KMPDU condemned the plan as treating Kenya as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen we did not generate, and demanded full disclosure of any Kenya–US agreements. The union bluntly warned, “If it is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya,” arguing that the facility would only compound the country’s current health-system challenges. Doctors pointed out that Kenyan hospitals already face shortages of medical drugs, equipment, and staff. They threatened industrial action unless the government addresses these issues.
Ordinary Kenyans voiced similar doubts with many asking why the centre would be off-limits to locals, saying a quarantine site should also be accessible to Kenyans too. Law Society of Kenya, through President Charles Kanjama SC, cautioned that rushing the plan without public input would violate the constitution. Katiba’s executive director, Nora Mbagathi, stressed that even urgent diplomacy must bow to constitutional safeguards that aim to protect the rights to life and health and enforcing accountability.
Regional experts, too, echoed these concerns. Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) head Dr. John Nkengasong warned that imposing an extra quarantine burden on Kenya could stretch its national capacities if not fully resourced. With Congo’s Ebola outbreak already declared a global emergency, the World Health Organization has underscored the need for prompt action but also for support to national health systems. By intervening, the High Court underscored that Kenya’s public health policy must align with constitutional rule-of-law norms.
Importantly, the ruling, which comes as a reprieve to many, sends a clear message on sovereignty and accountability: even well-meaning foreign assistance cannot override Kenya’s laws. As Katiba put it, the case “is about preserving constitutional accountability, protecting public health and ensuring that no government may place expediency above the lives and safety of the people of Kenya.” The Kenyan government and US partners must await a full hearing and, in the meantime, work to justify the plan’s health and security implications.
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.
