Concerns over Kenya’s newly announced U.S.-supported Ebola quarantine facility in Nanyuki have intensified after President William Ruto disclosed that he authorized the project, with lawyer Willis Otieno now calling for full disclosure on the agreement’s terms and broader strategic implications.
Speaking in response to the President’s remarks, Otieno questioned the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the facility, arguing that Kenyans deserve clarity on why Laikipia was selected and what agreements underpin foreign involvement in such sensitive health infrastructure.
President William Ruto stated that he approved the establishment of the Ebola quarantine centre at the request of the United States, adding that Kenya already hosts 23 similar health facilities across the country.
He defended the decision as part of ongoing cooperation in global health preparedness and emergency response systems.
However, Otieno has urged that the explanation be expanded beyond public health framing.
He pointed to Laikipia’s known strategic profile, noting reports of mineral deposits in the region, including gold occurrences, as well as the long-standing presence of the British Army Training Unit Kenya (BATUK), which has operated in the area for decades.
In his remarks, the lawyer argued that these overlapping factors raise legitimate public interest questions on whether broader strategic considerations are tied to the establishment of such facilities.
He stressed that transparency is key in maintaining public confidence, especially where foreign partnerships intersect with sensitive infrastructure.
“The public needs to understand the full scope of these arrangements, including the agreements governing foreign participation and whether there are any links to security, health preparedness, or resource interests,” Otieno noted.
The discussion comes at a time when the Nanyuki facility has already sparked debate following public protests and a temporary court order halting aspects of its implementation.
Critics have raised concerns about consultation, environmental impact, and national sovereignty, while the government maintains that the project is strictly a public health intervention.