All four Laikipia Members of Parliament have officially opposed the proposed US-linked Ebola quarantine facility in their county, demanding public participation, transparency, and alternative solutions. Here is their full statement.
The political resistance to the controversial US-linked Ebola quarantine facility proposed for Laikipia County has reached a defining moment — with all four Members of Parliament representing the county issuing a united, unequivocal, and public rejection of the plan.
In a joint statement released through the Office of Hon. Mwangi Kiunjuri, the elected representatives of Laikipia East, Laikipia North, Laikipia County, and Laikipia West have drawn a clear and unmistakable line in the sand — declaring their firm opposition to the establishment of any Ebola quarantine, isolation, or treatment facility in their county and vowing to stand with their constituents in protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of the people of Laikipia.
The statement represents the strongest and most politically significant grassroots pushback yet against a plan that has already triggered High Court conservatory orders, a 48-hour ultimatum from the Kenya Medical Association, and urgent court petitions from the Katiba Institute and the Law Society of Kenya — and it sends a powerful message to the Ruto administration that the residents of Laikipia were never consulted, never informed, and never given the opportunity to participate in a decision that directly and profoundly affects their lives.
The Four MPs Who Are Saying No: Who They Are and Who They Represent
The four legislators who have united to reject the facility are:
Hon. Mwangi Kiunjuri — Member of Parliament, Laikipia East A seasoned and highly experienced Kenyan politician, Hon. Kiunjuri has previously served in senior Cabinet positions and brings considerable political weight and national visibility to the joint statement. His office spearheaded the release of the statement, signalling his leadership role in coordinating the parliamentary opposition to the facility within Laikipia.
Hon. Sarah Paulata Korere — Member of Parliament, Laikipia North One of Kenya's most prominent and outspoken female legislators, Hon. Korere is a fierce advocate for the rights and interests of her constituents in Laikipia North — a constituency that, given its geographical proximity to the proposed facility site, has particular cause for concern about the public health implications of hosting an Ebola quarantine centre.
Hon. Jane Kagiri, OGW — Member of Parliament, Laikipia County The Women's Representative for Laikipia County, Hon. Kagiri brings a critical gender and community welfare perspective to the opposition — representing the women and families of Laikipia who stand to be most directly affected by any public health emergency arising from the proposed facility.
Hon. Wachira Karani — Member of Parliament, Laikipia West Completing the full parliamentary sweep of Laikipia's elected representatives, Hon. Karani's inclusion in the joint statement means that not a single constituency in Laikipia County has an MP who supports the government's plan — a remarkable and politically resonant fact that the Ruto administration cannot easily ignore.
What the MPs Are Saying: The Full Position Unpacked
The joint statement from Laikipia's MPs is carefully worded, constitutionally grounded, and politically pointed. It makes three core arguments that together constitute a comprehensive rejection of the government's approach to the Laikipia facility:
1. They Stand With the People — Health, Safety, and Wellbeing Come First
The MPs open their statement with an unambiguous declaration of where their loyalties lie — not with the national government, not with the United States, and not with any diplomatic or financial arrangement between foreign powers and Nairobi.
"As leaders entrusted by the people of Laikipia, we stand with residents in prioritising the health, safety and wellbeing of our communities," the statement reads.
This framing is deliberate and significant. By invoking their mandate as elected representatives — leaders entrusted by the people — the MPs are making a constitutional argument as much as a political one. Under Kenya's 2010 Constitution, elected representatives have a fundamental obligation to act in the interests of their constituents. The MPs are asserting that hosting a US-funded Ebola quarantine facility in Laikipia, without the knowledge or consent of the people who live there, is a direct violation of that obligation.
The reference to health, safety, and wellbeing also directly engages the constitutional right to life and dignity — rights that the Katiba Institute and Law Society of Kenya have similarly invoked in their court petitions. By aligning their political opposition with the constitutional framework, the MPs are strengthening the overall legal and moral case against the facility.
2. Transparency and Public Participation Are Non-Negotiable
The MPs' second major demand goes to the heart of what has made the Laikipia facility so deeply contentious from the moment it became public — the complete absence of any meaningful consultation with the communities most directly affected by the plan.
The statement calls upon "the relevant authorities to engage the public transparently and consider alternative solutions that safeguard public confidence and regional stability."
This demand for transparency and public participation is not merely a political preference — it is a constitutional requirement. Kenya's 2010 Constitution enshrines public participation as a fundamental principle of governance, requiring that decisions affecting communities — particularly those of the magnitude of hosting a foreign-operated Ebola facility on military land — be made through processes that genuinely engage and inform the people affected.
The residents of Laikipia County did not learn about the proposed facility through a government consultation process. They did not receive official briefings about what the facility would involve, what safeguards would be in place, or how their daily lives and safety would be protected. They learned about it — as the rest of Kenya did — through media reports. That is not public participation. That is not transparency. And Laikipia's MPs are making clear that it is not acceptable.
3. Major Decisions Require Proper Consultation — Always
The third pillar of the MPs' statement addresses the procedural legitimacy of the entire decision-making process that led to the facility being approved. Their position is unambiguous:
"We remain committed to protecting the interests of the people of Laikipia and ensuring that all major decisions affecting the county are made through proper consultation and public participation."
The word "all" is doing significant work in that sentence. The MPs are not making a narrow argument about this specific facility in this specific moment. They are laying down a broader principle — that any major decision affecting Laikipia County, regardless of its source, its urgency, or its financial attractiveness, must go through a proper, inclusive, and transparent process of public consultation before it can be legitimately implemented.
Applied to the current situation, this principle leads to one clear conclusion: the Ruto administration's approval of the Laikipia Ebola facility, negotiated behind closed doors and announced without any prior community engagement, did not meet the constitutional and democratic standards that the people of Laikipia are entitled to expect from their government.
What the MPs Are Calling For: A Summary of Demands
Reading between the lines of the joint statement, the four Laikipia MPs are effectively calling for the following:
- An immediate halt to any further steps toward establishing the Ebola facility in Laikipia pending genuine public consultation
- Full transparency from the national government about the terms of the agreement with the United States, including the specific conditions attached to the Ksh1.74 billion financial commitment
- Meaningful public participation — not token briefings or after-the-fact information sessions, but genuine community engagement that gives Laikipia residents a real voice in the decision
- Consideration of alternative solutions — including alternative locations, alternative facility designs, or alternative arrangements that do not require placing an Ebola quarantine centre in a populated Kenyan county without community consent
- Respect for devolution — the recognition that decisions of this magnitude affecting a specific county cannot be made solely at the national level without the meaningful involvement of county leadership and community representatives
What Happens Next
The joint statement from Laikipia's MPs adds yet another powerful voice to the growing chorus of opposition that is already reshaping the political and legal landscape around the proposed Ebola facility.
With the High Court's conservatory orders in place, the Katiba Institute and LSK court petitions proceeding toward a June 2 hearing, the KMPDU's 48-hour ultimatum demanding transparency, and now all four Laikipia MPs publicly rejecting the facility, the Ruto administration faces a genuinely formidable coalition of legal, institutional, professional, and political opposition.
The government's next moves — in court, in Parliament, and in its engagement with the Laikipia community — will determine whether the Laikipia Ebola facility ever becomes a reality, or whether it becomes a cautionary tale about the cost of making major public health decisions without bringing the people along.
The people of Laikipia have spoken. Their MPs have amplified that voice. Now it is the government's turn to listen.
This is a developing story. Stay tuned for updates as the situation continues to evolve ahead of the June 2 court mention.