The High Court of Kenya has issued a conservatory order suspending the entire Kenya-United States Health Cooperation Framework. In a ruling delivered on Friday, Justice Chacha Mwita halted the agreement signed earlier this month, citing substantial constitutional questions regarding sovereignty, public participation, and data privacy. The decision follows a petition filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who challenged the legality of the executive’s engagement with Washington.
This latest court action expands upon earlier restrictions placed on the deal. Previously, Justice Bahati Mwamuye had suspended specific clauses related to the transfer of medical and epidemiological data. Friday’s ruling by Justice Mwita effectively freezes the entire $1.6 billion (approximately KES 208 billion) partnership until the court can fully determine the merits of the case.
The Dispute Over the Deal
The contentious framework was signed in Washington, D.C., on December 4, 2025, by Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The agreement pledged $1.6 billion in U.S. support for Kenya’s healthcare system over five years. However, it also required the Kenyan government to contribute an estimated $850 million in counterpart funding, a fiscal obligation that petitioners argue was committed to without parliamentary approval.
Critics, including the Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK), have raised alarms over provisions that would allow the sharing of sensitive patient data with foreign entities. The petition argues that such clauses violate Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy. Furthermore, Senator Omtatah contends that the executive bypassed the Treaty Making and Ratification Act, thereby usurping the legislative authority of the National Assembly.
Senator Omtatah’s Response
Following the ruling, Senator Omtatah issued a statement characterizing the decision as a victory for the rule of law. He asserted that the court’s intervention reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution over diplomatic agreements. According to the senator, the ruling serves as a reminder that development initiatives cannot supersede legal safeguards, particularly regarding fiscal accountability and devolved health functions.
The senator emphasized that his opposition is not directed at international cooperation but at the procedural opacity of this specific deal. He urged the executive branch to view the suspension as a chance to realign the partnership with constitutional requirements. The court has directed that the matter proceed to a full hearing to address the alleged violations of Articles 10, 43, and 201 regarding public finance and healthcare rights.
The government has yet to issue a formal response to the comprehensive suspension. Legal analysts anticipate a rigorous legal battle as the state attempts to salvage the flagship health partnership. The case is expected to set a significant precedent regarding the extent of executive power in negotiating international agreements that commit public funds and sensitive citizen data.
