A coalition of Kenyan civil society organisations is raising alarms over a new health partnership with the United States, demanding stronger oversight and public accountability. The groups warn that without stringent safeguards, the five-year pact could disrupt essential health services and compromise sensitive patient data.

The agreement, signed in early December 2025, overhauls how Kenya funds critical programs for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. It marks a significant shift from decades of donor-led aid to a direct government-to-government framework, which will see Kenya progressively increase its domestic health spending.

Under the five-year framework, the U.S. will provide up to $1.6 billion (approx. KES 208 billion), while Kenya has pledged to co-invest about $850 million (approx. KES 110.5 billion) to gradually assume greater financial responsibility. This transition is at the heart of the concerns.

Protecting Patients and Public Purses

While welcoming international cooperation, the civil society advisory emphasizes that a poorly managed transition could erode public trust and reverse years of health gains. The organisations noted that key health areas like HIV, TB, and immunizations have long been heavily dependent on donor funding.

The primary demands from the watchdogs include:

• Full Transparency: Timely public disclosure of all implementation plans and financial implications to allow for parliamentary oversight.
• Community Involvement: Meaningful engagement with affected communities and civil society to ensure the transition serves patient interests.
• Data Sovereignty: Stronger legal and technical safeguards for patient health data as digital systems are expanded under the pact.
• Clear Financial Planning: A well-sequenced plan for the shift to domestic financing to prevent any interruption of essential services for millions of Kenyans.

The concerns have gained legal traction, with Kenya's High Court recently suspending the data-sharing components of the agreement following petitions by activists who argued the deal was signed without adequate public participation and legal safeguards.

In response, the Ministry of Health has insisted the framework is a cooperative policy arrangement, not a treaty, designed to strengthen Kenya's health system. Government officials have provided assurances that only aggregated, non-identifiable data would be shared and that all processes are bound by Kenyan law.

With the advisory formally submitted to the government, the focus now shifts to how officials will address these concerns. The outcome will be a critical test of Kenya's ability to manage complex international partnerships while protecting its sovereignty and the well-being of its citizens.