High Court to decide whether AG Oduor, CS Duale defied Ebola facility orders

The High Court will on June 22, 2026 rule on whether Attorney General Dorcas Oduor and Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale should be cited for contempt over the alleged disobedience of court orders suspending the construction of a proposed Ebola quarantine facility at the Laikipia Airbase.

The ruling date was set by Justice Patricia Nyaundi after hearing submissions from the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Katiba Institute, who accuse the two senior government officials of failing to comply with conservatory orders halting the project.

During the hearing, the petitioners also asked the court to allow a guided and restricted tour of the military facility to enable it to verify whether construction has continued despite the court orders.

Lawyer Kiragu Wathuta argued that the visit would assist the court in confirming compliance with its earlier directives.

Lawyers Wycliffe Oyoo and Jacjohn told the court that media reports suggest construction of the facility is ongoing and that some American personnel have already arrived in connection with the project.

They also relied on remarks allegedly made by an undisclosed US official indicating that construction would continue unless the bilateral agreement between Kenya and the United States is terminated.

The petitioners further cited statements by CS Duale before the Parliamentary Health Committee and in media interviews, arguing that his remarks that the project would proceed despite public opposition amounted to defiance of the court order.

They also referred to comments by President William Ruto in Wajir, where he reportedly said that US President Donald Trump had requested Kenya to establish the Ebola quarantine facility under a bilateral agreement. According to the petitioners, the Attorney General has yet to disclose the contents of that agreement.

Opposing the application, lawyers representing Duale denied that the CS had expressed any intention to disobey the court.

They argued that his comments merely underscored the government's commitment to pandemic preparedness and not a refusal to comply with court orders.

The defence further submitted that the petitioners had failed to produce sworn evidence proving construction was continuing, arguing that they had relied solely on unverified media reports. They urged the court to dismiss the contempt application.