Criticism in Kenya has mounted over a $2.5 billion Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on health cooperation with the United States, centring on provisions that would allow sharing of sensitive health and pathogen data. After legal challenges from a senator and the Consumers Federation of Kenya, a Kenyan court last week temporarily suspended implementation of the MoU insofar as it "provides for or facilitates the transfer, sharing or dissemination of medical, epidemiological or sensitive personal health data."
What the MoU Would Do
The agreement, negotiated under the US "America First Global Health Strategy," positions Washington to increase direct bilateral engagement with African health systems while scaling back the role of nonprofits that previously delivered US-funded programs. Kenya signed the MoU this month; other African countries including Rwanda, Uganda, Liberia, Lesotho and Eswatini have since signed similar deals.
Key features under dispute include a clause allowing the sharing of sensitive health information and pathogen data for up to 25 years, and provisions that could give broad US access to Kenya's health management systems and electronic medical records. The MoU's headline value is reported at $2.5 billion, with the US pledging $1.6 billion in investment in Kenyan health institutions and Kenya committing to increase its own health spending by $6.5 million over five years.
Legal Challenge and Court Timeline
Following two separate challenges — one by opposition MP Caleb Amisi (ODM) and another by the Consumers Federation of Kenya — the court suspended the data-sharing elements of the MoU. The court has instructed the Kenyan government to file its response by Jan. 16, with the case scheduled to return on Feb. 12.
Responses and Concerns
Opposition figures and civil-society groups argue the government bypassed statutory public participation and data-protection safeguards. Caleb Amisi told Semafor the pact "was going against the confines of the constitution," and accused the government of sidestepping due process.
"Anything that concerns citizens should be an open book. If the data is to be shared with a third party [the US], another layer of consent arises," said Nairobi-based lawyer Liz Lenjo, calling for the government to halt further engagement and restart the process with proper consultation.
Fifty civil society organisations across Africa published a joint letter urging governments to demand "fair terms" and warning that such agreements could grant Washington undue leverage — including the ability to reduce or withdraw aid for perceived noncompliance — and could erode national health and personal security.
The United States Embassy in Nairobi has sought to reassure Kenyans that any data sharing would be limited to aggregated, non‑personally identifiable information. "We are just putting on paper the many policies we have had for years, so any data sharing will be aggregated data, in other words, not personally identifiable data," Susan Burns, head of the US mission in Nairobi, said.
Context and Implications
Many African countries rely heavily on external funding to support health systems weakened by chronic underinvestment. The closure or reconfiguration of programmes such as USAID in some countries has underscored that dependence and helps explain why leaders may be open to direct US financing.
But critics say the new approach risks concentrating control with national executives and foreign partners while excluding civil society, health professionals and legal safeguards — especially in countries with weak data-protection frameworks. Local public health officials in Kenya say they were excluded from negotiations on a sector they oversee, a point highlighted by the organisation Defrontera, which said leaders were "cut out of the negotiations for a sector they legally run."
What To Watch
- Whether the Kenyan government files a substantive response by Jan. 16 and how the court rules on Feb. 12.
- How other African governments negotiate similar MoUs and whether they adopt stronger data-protection and public-participation safeguards.
- Whether the US clarifies the technical and legal limits on data access, retention and use — particularly the disputed 25-year data provision.
