LSK and Kariba Institute seek contempt of court proceedings over US-backed Ebola quarantine
LSK and Kariba Institute seek contempt of court proceedings over US-backed Ebola quarantine
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Katiba Institute have moved to court seeking contempt proceedings against the Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, accusing them of defying court orders that suspended the establishment of a US-backed Ebola quarantine and treatment facility at the Laikipia Air Base.
In an urgent application filed before the High Court on Wednesday, the two petitioners argued that the government has continued implementing the project despite conservatory orders issued on May 28 and reaffirmed on June 2, barring any further steps toward establishing or operationalising the facility.
The application arises from consolidated petitions HCHCRPET/E333/2026 and E334/2026, in which the petitioners challenged the legality of the proposed facility on grounds including public health concerns, environmental risks, and the lack of parliamentary approval and public participation.
According to court documents, the High Court on May 28 restrained the government from “establishing, operationalising, facilitating, approving or permitting” the Ebola facility or any similar project linked to the United States or another foreign government.
The court subsequently directed the Health Cabinet Secretary on June 2 to publicly disclose agreements, assessments, operational protocols, and related documents concerning the project within seven days.
However, the petitioners contend that the orders have been ignored.
In a certificate of urgency filed alongside the application, lawyer Joshua Malidzo Nyawa accuses the respondents of deliberately disregarding the authority of the court.
“The Respondents have engaged in conduct that amounts to a confrontation with the Judiciary by openly, wilfully, deliberately, and continuously disobeying and violating existing court orders,” he states.
The applicants rely on media reports from both local and international outlets, including Reuters, the New York Times, NTV, and the Daily Nation, which they say indicate that construction activities have continued at the Laikipia Air Base.
According to the court documents, Reuters reported that satellite imagery showed structures, tents, and vehicles at the site after the court orders were issued.
The report also indicated that several US military transport aircraft had landed at Nanyuki Air Base carrying personnel, construction workers, engineers, and medical equipment.
The petitioners further cite reports alleging that approximately 300 US troops from various locations had continued work on the facility, including erecting tents and installing medical equipment, because Kenyan authorities had not instructed the US government to halt the project.
The application also alleges that the Health Cabinet Secretary publicly acknowledged awareness of the court orders during appearances before Parliament and in media interviews, but maintained that construction of the facility would proceed.
Katiba Institute Executive Director Nora Mbagathi, in a supporting affidavit, argues that the continued implementation of the project despite existing court orders threatens the rule of law and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.
The petitioners are asking the court to certify the matter as urgent, cite the Attorney-General and the Health Cabinet Secretary for contempt of court, impose appropriate sanctions, and compel the government to file a status report detailing compliance with the court’s previous directives.
“This court cannot be helpless or be reduced to babysitting its own court orders,” the applicants state in their certificate of urgency, warning that failure to intervene could embolden continued disregard of judicial authority.
They further argue that the alleged non-compliance violates constitutional principles of good governance, accountability, and the rule of law enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution.
“There is nothing for further explanation or clarification in the Court Rulings. The orders were issued in plain, unambiguous language. Yet, the 1st and 2 Respondents have flagrantly disobeyed clear court orders,” read the court documents.