As Kenya and the United Kingdom negotiate a new Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA), the talks have become about far more than military training.
They have evolved into a national conversation about sovereignty, accountability and the rule of law.
Whatever agreement eventually emerges will shape not only future defence cooperation but also public confidence in how justice is administered when foreign troops operate on Kenyan soil.
Opposition leaders and civil society advocates have issued a firm directive to the Kenyan government as negotiations enter a decisive phase.
They have made it clear that they will only support a new agreement with the British Army Training Unit Kenya (BATUK) if it guarantees full respect for Kenyan law and places British soldiers under the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts.
Any agreement that fails to do so, they argue, would represent a surrender of national sovereignty and a betrayal of justice for victims seeking accountability.
The demand comes as the two governments negotiate a successor to the 2015 and 2021 Defence Cooperation Agreements.
At the centre of the dispute is the reported British position that it should retain primary jurisdiction over its troops for offences committed while on official duty.
Opposition leaders argue that such an arrangement is inconsistent with Kenya's constitutional principles.
Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi announced on July 28, 2026, that the joint military exercise Haraka Storm would proceed after all, saying the decision reflected the ability of Kenya and the United Kingdom to resolve challenges through dialogue.
Even so, opposition leaders maintain that the legal and accountability issues at the heart of the negotiations remain unresolved and should be addressed before a new agreement is concluded.
The debate has also been shaped by the findings of a 2025 parliamentary inquiry into BATUK operations.
The report documented allegations spanning several decades, including claims of sexual violence, physical abuse and child abandonment.
It also recommended a review of the legal framework governing military cooperation, alongside measures to strengthen accountability and oversight.
A central reference point in the debate remains the case of Agnes Wanjiru, who was killed in 2012. A British soldier has been publicly linked to the case, but no trial has taken place in Kenya.
The matter has continued to attract attention from both Kenyan and British authorities and remains, for many campaigners, a symbol of the need for greater accountability.
Her niece, Esther Njoki, has become one of the prominent voices calling for justice.
Former Public Service Cabinet Secretary Justin Muturi has been among the strongest critics of the existing legal framework governing BATUK operations.
He argues that the Wanjiru case demonstrates the need for a revised agreement that provides greater clarity on criminal jurisdiction and ensures that serious offences committed in Kenya are handled in a manner that inspires public confidence.
Whether one agrees with the opposition's position or not, the issues being raised deserve careful consideration.
Kenya has every right to review the legal arrangements governing foreign military personnel operating within its borders. International defence agreements vary widely.
Some countries exercise broader jurisdiction over foreign troops, while others adopt shared or concurrent arrangements.
The model Kenya chooses should ultimately reflect its Constitution, international commitments and national interests, rather than simply replicate agreements used elsewhere.
Parliament will ultimately play a crucial role when the agreement is presented for ratification. Members will be expected to scrutinise not only its security implications but also whether it adequately safeguards Kenya's constitutional principles and the rights of its citizens.
The outcome of these negotiations will have implications beyond BATUK. It will signal how Kenya approaches future defence partnerships and whether international cooperation can coexist with strong national institutions and respect for the rule of law.
If the negotiations produce an agreement that commands public confidence and reflects the principles of accountability, fairness and mutual respect, they will strengthen confidence in both the bilateral relationship and Kenya's justice system.
The recent decision by the UK to cancel and then reinstate Exercise Haraka Storm, following the Kenyan government's assurance on licences, has emboldened opposition leaders who see this as an opportunity to renegotiate from a position of strength in the ongoing sovereignty debate.
They note that Britain accepts full legal accountability for its troops in Germany and Cyprus and see no reason why Kenya should accept less.
The message from the opposition is now unequivocal, and they are watching the ratification process closely while warning that any agreement that fails to secure Kenyan jurisdiction over crimes committed on Kenyan soil will face political and legal resistance.
For them, this is not merely a diplomatic formality but a defining moment for Kenya's sovereignty and the rule of law.
Peter Johnson, a researcher specialising in African affairs
