The extradition of Kenyan nationals to foreign jurisdictions has sparked a heated debate on the definition of sovereignty in an interconnected world. As Nairobi deepens its cooperation with the FBI and Interpol to combat transnational syndicates, legal experts warn that the state must not become a mere outpost for foreign law enforcement.

The fight against global crime—be it drug trafficking, cyber fraud, or terrorism—is undeniably a shared responsibility. However, the recent trend of "extraordinary renditions" disguised as deportations raises uncomfortable questions about the protection of Kenyan citizens' constitutional rights. Does the passport in your pocket guarantee the protection of your flag, or is it merely a travel document?

The Kevin Kang’ethe Precedent

The dramatic escape and recapture of fugitive Kevin Kang’ethe, wanted in the US for murder, highlighted the gaps in our extradition treaties. While justice must be served, the process must be anchored in Kenyan law, not dictated by the political pressure of powerful allies.

• Due Process: Sovereignty implies that a Kenyan suspect should exhaust all local legal remedies before being handed over. Fast-tracking extraditions to please foreign capitals undermines our own judiciary.
• Reciprocity: Cooperation must be a two-way street. Critics point out that while Kenya is quick to hand over its citizens, Western nations often shield their own nationals accused of crimes on Kenyan soil (e.g., the historical injustices of British soldiers in Nanyuki).
• Cyber Sovereignty: With the rise of "Wash Wash" and crypto-fraud, the jurisdiction of crime is blurring. Kenya must develop its own robust capacity to prosecute these crimes locally rather than outsourcing justice to the US Department of Justice.

The Middle Ground

Protecting sovereignty does not mean shielding criminals. It means ensuring that the sword of justice is wielded by Kenyan judges, under Kenyan laws. We can be partners in the global war on crime without becoming subordinates.