A Kenyan High Court has suspended parts of a recently signed 2.5 billion dollar healthcare aid agreement due to data privacy concerns. The suspension applies specifically to data-sharing provisions and does not cancel funding for healthcare services or commodities. The ruling was issued by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, who directed that implementation of the data-sharing provisions of the strategy be halted pending a full hearing of the case in early February.

The judge emphasised the need to protect constitutional rights while the matter is under consideration.The America First Global Health Strategy is the deal signed between the East African country and the United States of America. Following a petition filed by a Kenyan consumer rights group, Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK), the court barred authorities from implementing any aspect of the agreement that facilitates the transfer, sharing, or dissemination of medical, epidemiological, or sensitive personal health data until the case is fully heard on 12 February.

 In this case, epidemiological data refers to the information Kenya has about disease outbreaks, infection and mortality rates, and transmission trends. Such data is often used for public health planning and early warning systems, but can raise concerns when shared across borders without strong safeguards.

The court used conservatory orders, a legal tool similar to an injunction, which temporarily halts government action to prevent potential harm while a case is being reviewed.

“Decision-making informed by Kenyan health data must be public, auditable and jointly supervised, with consumer representatives involved in data processing, monitoring and evaluation, and independent oversight,” COFEK said in a statement.

The group warns that Kenya risks ceding strategic control of its health system if external players control pharmaceuticals for emerging diseases or the digital infrastructure hosting raw data. This concern reflects fears of foreign influence over national health priorities and data systems.

This agreement with Kenya was signed during a period of restructuring of U.S foreign assistance. Under the current administration, many global health functions that have been managed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have been consolidated under the U.S Department of State.

Data from the World Bank says Kenya spent almost twelve thousand Kenyan Shillings per person on healthcare 3 years ago, of which around 20% were grants from the American government. When the USAID went down in early 2025, it particularly exposed millions of Africans to health budget shortfalls, especially those under the management of HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, among other infectious diseases.

This restructuring has been confirmed in official U.S. Department of State policy briefings on global health assistance. It signifies a new system of direct bilateral agreements with foreign governments, rather than reliance on non-governmental organisations and multilateral aid agencies. According to the strategy of the U.S., this will improve accountability.  

America’s global health strategy, signed by Kenya in December 2025, outlines the American government’s approach to global health aid. The strategy prioritises direct agreements with recipient governments, funding for front-line health commodities and healthcare workers, and reduced spending on technical assistance and program management. According to the U.S. Department of State, the goal is to make aid more efficient and results-driven.

It also emphasises disease surveillance, outbreak detection, and the integration of health programs into national health systems, while promoting U.S.-developed medical technology through foreign aid. Other African countries, including Rwanda and Uganda, have signed similar agreements.

These signings have been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. State Department and partner government announcements. These deals guarantee U.S. health funds; however, the countries are also required to spend more of their own money on health. The requirement is meant to encourage long-term sustainability, but it can strain national budgets.

This strategy is led by the U.S. Department of State, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Its objectives include early detection and containment of infectious diseases, continuation of treatment and prevention programs, and gradual transition of health systems to domestic financing.

U.S. officials describe this as a move toward “shared responsibility” in global health. In Africa, the U.S. has announced bilateral health agreements with Kenya, Rwanda, Lesotho, Liberia, and Uganda. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and polio, as well as outbreak-prone diseases including Ebola, will be given special concern due to their prevalence, mortality risks, and cross-border transmission risks.

These priorities align with longstanding U.S. global health programs such as PEPFAR and the Global Health Security Agenda. The Kenyan High Court issued conservatory orders after reviewing a petition filed by COFEK. The petition argued that the agreement could violate institutional protections related to privacy and data ownership.

Article 1 of the bilateral agreement between Kenya and the US states reads, “The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which the Government of Kenya shall provide the US Government with data, derived from Health Programs supported through the Cooperation Framework between the Government of Kenya and the US Government.” Here, the U.S. Government states its interest in data from Kenya’s health sector.

Data advocates say that the agreement does not serve Kenya well, as the country will provide data without mechanisms to monitor or limit how the U.S. government uses the data. They say ownership without control is impotent, as portrayed under the agreement in paragraph 18 on “Intellectual Property.”

The critics of the agreement also point out that the seven-year window to 2032 is far too long to commit Kenya to, as credible health data, according to the Digital Health Act, 2023, is a strategic asset to the country. While these data privacy concerns linger, Kenya’s President, William Ruto, has sought to reassure citizens that their data will be protected. His remarks were made during a public address responding to growing concerns about digital governance.

“The office of the Attorney General went through the agreement with a toothcomb to make sure the law that prevails on data that belongs to the people of Kenya is the Kenyan law,” he said. The Office of the Attorney General is supposed to review international agreements before implementation. Kenya’s data privacy laws, primarily embodied in the Data Protection Act of 2019, shift the power of public information back to the individual, ensuring that both public and private organisations handle personal data in a way that is lawful, transparent, and secure. The law is enforced by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. Kenyans also reserve the right to disallow the use of their personal data. The act is heavily modeled after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), making Kenya a “data-safe” country. This status is often cited by technology firms and international partners.

The balance between getting international health aid and keeping national control is a challenge for African countries. In Nigeria, a World Bank-funded “ID4D” project, which gave life to the national identification cards, came with a strict condition – that Nigeria pass a new data protection law before receiving the $433 million in funding. Local critics felt this was a form of international pressure to change laws to match global standards. Questions were asked about whether the project was more about helping people or about creating a database for state surveillance and debt.

A famous court case, also in Nigeria, changed how people think about digital privacy. In the case of Olumide Babalola v. Truecaller (2024), a lawyer sued the mobile application for collecting phone numbers of people who had not even signed up. The court ruled in favour of Truecaller and blamed the app’s users who shared their contacts freely.

Legal analysts say the ruling weakened protections for individuals whose data is shared without consent. The outcome of this case implied that international organisations may not be held liable if anything went wrong with citizen data. As health programs move online, “Data Sovereignty”, the idea that a country should own and control its own data, has become a top priority. Ethiopia is currently working on its Digital Ethiopia 2030 Strategy to put all health records into one digital system. To make sure this data is safe, the government passed a new law in 2024 requiring health data to be stored on local servers in Ethiopian cities like Adama.

This policy was announced by Ethiopia’s Ministry of Innovation and Technology. They want to avoid “data colonialism,” where African health data is taken by foreign researchers without giving any benefits back to the local people. While African countries do need aid and support for their healthcare systems, their leaders still have the duty of protecting the privacy of their people.

The Kenyan court is expected to hear the case fully on 12th February. The outcome could shape how Kenya structures future health partnerships and how African countries balance foreign aid with data protection.

Kenya should take clear and timely steps to build its own health data system as an alternative to health data platforms funded or controlled by the U.S., allowing the country to use its data for local research, policymaking, and the growth of its pharmaceutical industry. This would involve creating systems that are fully owned and managed within Kenya to reduce dependence on foreign funding, especially by involving private investors.

Kenya’s health data agreement is not unique, as other African countries are also likely to be invited by the Trump administration to sign similar deals, which may not fully serve their long-term interests, but which they may accept out of financial need rather than genuine choice.