In recent months, public debate in Kenya has turned toward Host Country Agreements (HCAs) that the government has with international organisations and multilateral institutions. The conversation has been lively, as it should be. But it has also, at times, been clouded by misinformation, disinformation and mischaracterisation.
At the core of the debate is the perception that HCAs erode Kenya’s sovereignty. This is a misunderstanding. If anything, HCAs are an expression of sovereignty.
I spent most of my civil service years working within Kenya’s Foreign Affairs system. I have sat in negotiation rooms and reviewed many international agreements, including HCAs, on behalf of our country.
HCAs are not new, unusual, or unique to Kenya. They are carefully negotiated bilateral legal instruments between the Government of Kenya and international organisations that define the status and operating conditions for those entities within our territory.
HCAs provide the legal framework under which an international organisation operates in a host country. They clarify legal status, privileges, immunities and operating conditions, while also defining obligations that must be respected within the host country.
The privileges and immunities granted are functional in nature and include tax exemptions, personnel immunity for official acts and protection of property. They help organisations operate securely and effectively while enabling host countries to attract international cooperation and investment.
HCAs do not exist in a vacuum, nor are they an open ended grant of authority. Their negotiation and implementation are guided by the host country’s constitutional order, laws and national interests. Like any bilateral agreement, they operate through the sovereign will of the state.
Kenya, like many sovereign nations, has concluded HCAs with international organisations since independence in 1963. They form part of Kenya’s deliberate foreign policy and broader efforts to promote international cooperation.
The process of negotiating and administering HCAs is guided by the Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Act and other relevant laws and regulations. This demonstrates that HCAs rest on a firm legal foundation and operate within the parameters established by Kenya’s legal framework.
Much of the current concern centres on issues of immunity, privilege and tax exemptions. These are not new concepts, nor are they unique to HCAs.
They exist in diplomatic practice worldwide and serve a functional purpose by ensuring organisations and their staff can carry out official duties effectively and with a secure legal status.
Immunity is often misunderstood as impunity. It is not.
The immunity granted under HCAs applies to official acts and functions. It does not place individuals beyond the reach of the law, nor does it exempt organisations from accountability.
Host states retain legal and regulatory authority, and HCAs contain mechanisms for addressing any abuse of privileges and immunities while safeguarding national interests.
Taxation is another area where misunderstanding is common. Exemptions on specific taxes are not acts of generosity.
They recognise the unique nature of international organisations and are weighed against the benefits they provide to host countries. These benefits include employment opportunities, knowledge transfer, economic development and an expanded diplomatic footprint.
What concerns me is not that Kenyans are asking questions. It is that the answers are sometimes shaped by incomplete or misleading interpretations of what HCAs are designed to do. Host country agreements are instruments of cooperation. They allow states to host organisations that operate across borders while maintaining appropriate oversight and control.