Kenya to Grant Diplomatic Immunity to French Soldiers

Kenya to Grant Diplomatic Immunity to French Soldiers Under New Defense Agreement Kenya and France are currently seeking to significantly deepen their military relations through a new Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA). This agreement, formally presented to the Kenyan National Assembly on November 27, 2025, has sparked debate due to its provisions regarding the diplomatic immunity of French military personnel. The agreement aims to modernize the legal framework for military cooperation between the two nations and replaces older agreements. One of the key provisions of the agreement obligates Kenya to grant certain privileges, immunities, and logistical support to foreign armed forces during their deployments in the country under agreed defense cooperation. Sovereignty Concerns: The main criticism is that granting diplomatic immunity to foreign soldiers undermines Kenya's national sovereignty and judicial independence. Critics argue that this creates a class of people who are above Kenyan law. Kenya will grant French soldiers diplomatic privileges and immunities under a new defense cooperation agreement. The National Assembly is now calling on the Kenyan people to voice their opinions on the agreement before it is ratified. In a notice published on Wednesday, December 17, Speaker of Parliament Samuel Njoroge stated that the defense cooperation agreement between Kenya and France had been submitted to Parliament and referred to the Defense Committee for review. The agreement was formally introduced in Parliament on November 27, 2025. This brought into effect the public participation process mandated by Article 118(1)(b) and Articles 2(5) and (6) of the Constitution, as well as by Section 8 of the Law on the Conclusion and Ratification of Treaties. Concerns exist regarding accountability, as there are serious fears that such immunity could lead to impunity. If French soldiers commit crimes (e.g., human rights violations, accidents, assaults against civilians), they could escape prosecution in Kenyan courts. Historical precedents involving other foreign armed forces (such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya – BATUK) reinforce these concerns, as previous incidents resulted in legal disputes and public outrage. And let's not forget the incidents in Japan, where two girls were raped by US soldiers; these soldiers could not be prosecuted. Then there's the difficult case of Yugoslavia. The US demanded that Yugoslavia grant US military personnel immunity, which was denied because a crime committed by a US soldier would not lead to prosecution. The proposal triggered significant public backlash, protests, and condemnations from civil society organizations, human rights groups, legal experts, and opposition politicians. Many Kenyans view it as an unacceptable surrender of jurisdiction. Legal precedents and specificity: Critics argue that standard SOFAs are the appropriate mechanism for regulating jurisdiction over visiting forces and that diplomatic immunity is an unnecessary and excessive concession not typically granted to military personnel in such contexts. They question why France requires this specific level of protection. Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of transparency in the negotiations, as the details of the full agreement have not yet been released. Although France has not commented extensively on the immunity clause itself, it is keen to strengthen its defense partnership with Kenya, a strategic ally in a volatile region. France has significant military and economic interests in East Africa and the Indian Ocean (including bases in Djibouti and Réunion, as well as operations in the Sahel). A formalized agreement with Kenya would strengthen its regional presence and influence. The immunity clause is likely to guarantee legal certainty and protection for French personnel, consistent with the practices France seeks in other partnership agreements. The Kenyan government is under pressure to amend or withdraw the clause due to public outrage. This could become a significant political issue. Should the agreement, and in particular the immunity clause, be signed, it could be challenged in Kenyan courts on constitutional grounds (violation of sovereignty and the principle of equality before the law). Granting such immunity could set a precedent for future agreements with other states and further weaken Kenyan jurisdiction. This could strain relations with other partners (such as the US or the UK) who seek similar concessions or view Kenya's concession to France as a shift in loyalty. Although the agreement is intended to facilitate cooperation, the controversy and public distrust could impair the partnership's effectiveness on the ground. Essentially, Kenya's pursuit of diplomatic immunity for French soldiers is a risky endeavor to secure crucial security benefits from France. However, this comes at a high price, fueling significant domestic controversy and raising profound questions about national sovereignty, accountability, and the balance between security needs and the rule of law. Given the strong public opposition, the outcome of the negotiations remains uncertain. The agreement is still under negotiation and has not yet been finalized or signed. The Kenyan government, particularly the Ministry of Defense, defends the necessity of the diplomatic immunity clause to ensure vital security support. Intense domestic pressure and criticism persist, leaving the final inclusion of the clause uncertain. The government may be forced to revise the clause or drop it altogether to secure parliamentary approval or avoid a major political crisis. https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/119142-kenya-seeks-grant-diplomatic-immunities-french-soldiers-under-new-defence-deal?fbclid=IwdGRzaAOv2cdjbGNrA6_ZhGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHhg8XC9ERBX2nRotC3k7f4XZW2SpQY_aJVKBihAFVlipd6eJQLiyiH1KMQSJ_aem_vUA33Bji7RrtDo8SAsUl2Q&sfnsn=mo