Host nation pacts are not surrender of sovereignty

President William Ruto and US President Donald Trump after a past meeting in Washington, DC. [File, Standard]

In recent months, public debate in Kenya has turned toward Host Country Agreements (HCAs) that our government has with multilateral institutions. The conversation has been lively, as it should be. But it has also, at times, been clouded by misinformation, disinformation and, in some cases, mis-characterisation.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that HCA reduces Kenya’s sovereignty. However, this is a misunderstanding. If anything, it is an expression of it. Let me explain. I spent most of my years working in Kenya’s foreign affairs system. I have been in negotiation rooms and reviewed many international agreements on behalf of the country. These agreements are not just documents. They are carefully structured legal instruments that define how Kenya engages externally, protects its interests, and exercises its sovereignty. I have also seen how easily such agreements can be misunderstood outside those rooms.

At their core, HCAs are not new or unusual. They are legal frameworks that define the relationship between a host state and an international organisation operating within its territory. Kenya, like many countries, has entered into such agreements over many decades. They are a normal part of international cooperation between countries. An HCA sets out practical matters. It clarifies the legal status of an organisation, the privileges required for it to function and the obligations it must respect. It is not an open-ended grant of authority. It is a negotiated instrument, shaped by the host country’s laws, interests, and constitutional order.

No agreement of this nature exists outside the sovereign will of the state. In Kenya, that will is expressed through a defined constitutional process. Agreements are negotiated by the executive, scrutinised through established legal channels and, where required, subjected to parliamentary oversight and public participation. They do not override the Constitution. They operate within it.

Much of the current concern appears to centre on issues of immunity and privilege. These are not new concepts, nor are they unique to HCAs. They exist in diplomatic practice worldwide and serve a functional purpose. They allow organisations to carry out their mandates without undue interference, particularly in politically sensitive or cross-border work. But immunity is often misunderstood. It is not a licence for impunity. It is limited, defined, and tied to official functions. It does not place individuals beyond the reach of the law in all circumstances, nor does it exempt organisations from accountability. Host states retain legal and regulatory authority. Mechanisms exist, both within agreements and in broader international practice, to address abuse where it arises.

Host Country Agreements are in the end, instruments of cooperation. They allow states to host organisations that operate across borders, often in complex and sensitive areas. They require balance, between enabling that work and maintaining control, between being open and ensuring proper oversight. Kenya has navigated this balance before. It has done so by relying on its legal framework, its institutions, and its long-standing diplomatic practice. There is no reason to believe it cannot do so again.

The question before us is not whether to engage with the world. That choice has long been made. The question is how we do so and whether we approach these engagements with confidence in our systems. From where I sit, the answer is simple. We must have confidence in our systems. Sovereignty is not asserted by withdrawing from international engagements, but by shaping them on our own terms in line with our Constitution and national interest.

- Writer is an advocate and ex-diplomat