The United States has temporarily suspended a $1.6 billion (KSh207 billion) health cooperation framework with Kenya after the High Court halted its implementation, citing constitutional and data protection concerns.
The agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi, was designed to deepen bilateral collaboration in public health, including disease prevention, research, and system strengthening.
However, what was framed as a strategic expansion of U.S. –Kenya health cooperation has quickly evolved into a constitutional and legal contest with potentially far-reaching implications.
Legal challenge and judicial intervention
The deal was challenged by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) alongside Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who argued that the framework permitted the transfer of sensitive health data to U.S. entities without adequate safeguards.
The petitioners further contended that the executive branch bypassed mandatory parliamentary oversight, thereby undermining constitutional provisions governing international agreements.
In December 2025, High Court Justices Bahati Mwamuye and Chacha Mwita issued conservatory orders suspending implementation of the agreement. In February 2026, the court declined to lift the suspension, maintaining the freeze pending full hearing and determination of the case.
The ruling effectively places the future of the multibillion-shilling partnership in the hands of the judiciary.
US response and continuity of existing programmes
The United States Embassy in Nairobi confirmed that the framework would be reviewed and potentially restructured once the court renders its final judgment.
Susan Burns, the Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires, assured stakeholders that existing health interventions would continue uninterrupted. Ongoing support for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis programmes remains in place through established channels, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the embassy’s foreign assistance office.
The reassurance aims to prevent panic within Kenya’s public health ecosystem, which relies heavily on external funding for disease control initiatives.
Risk of a funding shortfall
Researchers from the University of Nairobi’s Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (CEMA) have warned that a prolonged suspension could create a funding gap estimated at KSh71 billion.
Such a shortfall, according to their analysis, could disrupt the supply chain of essential medicines and weaken service delivery, particularly in disease prevention and treatment programmes serving vulnerable populations.
The concern is not merely financial — it is systemic. Kenya’s health architecture is deeply intertwined with donor-funded programmes, making any prolonged uncertainty potentially destabilizing.
Beyond health: a test of governance and sovereignty
At its core, the dispute transcends healthcare financing. It raises fundamental questions about data sovereignty, executive authority in foreign agreements, and the constitutional requirement for parliamentary oversight.
The High Court’s final ruling will therefore shape more than a bilateral health partnership. It could establish a precedent for how Kenya navigates international agreements involving sensitive public data and strategic sectors.
For now, both governments are in a holding pattern — awaiting judicial clarity. Meanwhile, Kenya’s health sector remains in a state of cautious anticipation, balancing the promise of expanded cooperation against the constitutional guardrails designed to protect national interests.
Afrovera analysis: The case underscores a growing tension across Africa between international development partnerships and domestic legal accountability — a dynamic that will likely define the next phase of global health diplomacy on the continent.
