Host Country Agreements must face scrutiny

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

Host Country Agreements (HCAs) have become the subject of growing public debate in Kenya. That interest is welcome. These agreements can shape how international organisations operate in the country, and citizens have every right to question terms agreed in their name.

The problem is that the debate has moved faster than public understanding. Agreements involving very different organisations are often discussed as though they are identical or provide the same technical assistance and benefits to the government and people of Kenya.

They are not.

The right question is whether each agreement complies with Kenyan law, protects the public interest and gives the country a fair return. That judgment must begin with the agreement itself.

An HCA provides the legal framework under which an international organisation operates in Kenya. It may cover immigration, taxation, employment, security and legal status, as well as the organisation’s responsibilities to the state.

Many HCAs apply to organisations involved in research, health, education, agriculture, humanitarian response and economic development. Their presence can bring investment, expertise, jobs and international influence. Those benefits make the terms of each agreement important. Legal protections must come with clear limits and responsibilities.

A common misconception is that HCAs are standard documents that governments accept with little scrutiny. In practice, they are negotiated across government and examined by legal, financial, security and regulatory officials.

The Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs usually coordinates the process, working with institutions including the Office of the Attorney General, the National Treasury and relevant ministries and regulators. Officials assess the legal terms, financial implications and operational requirements before an agreement is concluded. That process matters because international organisations have different mandates. A humanitarian agency may need to move staff and equipment quickly during a crisis, while a research institution may require provisions covering laboratories, specialist staff or imported materials. Their legal and operational needs will differ. So will their HCAs.

This is where public debate can go wrong. A clause taken from one agreement may appear more generous or restrictive than one in another, but the comparison tells us little without the wider context. The organisation’s purpose, the limits imposed and the obligations it accepts all matter.

Each agreement should therefore face clear questions: What rights does it grant? Why are they needed? What limits apply? What obligations does the organisation owe Kenya? What happens if it breaches the rules? What does the country gain in return?

These questions allow citizens to determine whether the government has secured a fair deal and distinguish genuine weaknesses from differences arising from an organisation’s mandate.

Government must make that scrutiny possible. Too often, the public first hears about an HCA after controversy has begun. By then, isolated clauses and fragments of legal language are circulating without context.

Officials should publish clear explanations of important agreements, including why provisions are included and how they protect the national interest. Parliament should scrutinise those explanations, challenge weak provisions and demand changes where safeguards fall short.

Poor communication breeds mistrust. Legal language can make an agreement appear broader than it is, while vague government assurances can make legitimate concerns seem dismissed.

The answer is greater clarity. Citizens should be able to see the substance of an agreement and understand the government’s case for it.

Kenya has spent decades building its position as one of Africa’s leading diplomatic and international centres. That role brings influence and opportunity, but also demands discipline. The country should welcome organisations that contribute to its development while setting firm terms for how they operate.

Some agreements will deserve support. Others may need amendment, challenge or rejection. The label “Host Country Agreement” does not answer that question. The terms do.

Kenya needs a debate informed enough to judge those terms properly. Better understanding will not soften scrutiny. It will help citizens ask sharper questions, identify genuine risks and hold decision-makers to account.

That is the standard every Host Country Agreement should meet.

Ambassador Vungo is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, and former career diplomat, director of Legal and Host Country Affairs, and Registrar of Treaties at the Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.