Kenya-France military pact: Have we learnt nothing from Batuk?

Kenya’s latest defence cooperation agreement with France exposes how little the state has learned from its own history. The recently ratified Kenya–France military pact grants French troops operating in the country diplomatic-style privileges and legal protections, including jurisdictional shields that allow their home country to retain primary authority over offences committed in the course of duty. These provisions, which also include the possibility of serving sentences outside Kenya and protections against certain penalties, have already raised alarm about impunity and sovereignty.

While it may be painted to the citizenry that this agreement will offer rewards in the form of military training and intelligence exchange, the reality is that Kenya is once again offering legal shelter to foreign soldiers on its soil, despite overwhelming evidence that such arrangements have historically enabled violence, particularly against women and girls. The most glaring and often repeated example of this is the long-standing presence of British troops under the British Army Training Unit Kenya (BATUK). For decades, allegations of sexual violence, exploitation, and even murder have surrounded these troops. The structure of these agreements has consistently allowed foreign militaries to evade meaningful prosecution within Kenya’s legal system, meaning that the thousands of women and girls affected will receive no justice, and this is by design.

The most emblematic case is the murder of Agnes Wanjiru in 2012. Agnes was last seen with British soldiers before her body was discovered in a septic tank. More than a decade later, the case has been plagued by delays and an absence of accountability, despite evidence implicating the soldiers.

This historical context must be utilised in reading the present immunity agreement, as Kenya has chosen to extend similar protections to French troops. The argument that such agreements are necessary for security cooperation rings hollow when weighed against the documented harms. It tells us that diplomatic relationships carry a much higher priority than the safety of Kenyans.

The implications for Kenya’s escalating femicide crisis are particularly alarming. The country is already grappling with rising levels of gender-based violence, which has reached crisis proportions. Over the past month alone, multiple cases have emerged that illustrate the scale and normalisation of violence against women. These cases are part of a broader pattern in which women’s lives are treated as disposable. When news of femicides comes out, public reaction reflects just how far gone we are as a society. The murder of women is treated as an inevitability, or even just punishment for perceived immorality. Women are urged to raise their moral standards to avoid being killed.

We need to keep it constantly in mind that Kenya pledged on the international stage to end gender-based violence and femicide by 2026. Yet all decisions made regarding the safety of women and girls seem to be moving in the opposite direction from this pledge. This immunity agreement is perhaps the most jarring example of the disregard, considering the thousands of fatherless mixed-race children that populate areas where BATUK have been in operation in Kenya. Efforts to resolve the femicide question, on the other hand, such as the report by the Technical Working Group on GBV and Femicide, suggest arrest for bystanders and increased surveillance of citizens, rather than leaning toward norm-change and protection. History has shown us that prosecution is not truly effective in the fight against crimes that harm women and girls, and yet laws continue to be drawn up with lofty promises that deliver no justice.

It is also important to note that the connection between militarisation and gender-based violence is well established. Military environments often produce conditions that enable exploitation and abuse. Power imbalances and economic disparities create opportunities for violence that are difficult to regulate. When these dynamics are combined with legal immunity, the result is a system that not only permits abuse but actively protects the perpetrators.

The signing of the agreement with France is a deliberate action taken by the government of Kenya to overlook the lessons we continue to learn from British military presence and to ignore the realities of Kenya’s femicide crisis. It suggests that, once again, the lives of Kenyan women are being treated as collateral in the pursuit of geopolitical interests. Until this changes, the cycle will continue, with women continuing to suffer at the hands of people who have power over them, and the government will look away.

The writer is an international lawyer