Intervention or hijack? President Ruto’s authority as patron in Nairobi Hospital fight explained

It is a battle for the soul of one of East Africa’s premier health facilities. The Nairobi Hospital, long a symbol of medical excellence, is currently embroiled in an ownership and corruption saga that has now caught the attention of State House.

But as the President vows to protect the Nairobi Hospital from what he terms charlatans and fraudsters, legal experts are raising a red flag.

Does the President, in his capacity as Patron, actually have the teeth to intervene?

For decades, it has been the sanctuary of the elite and the bedrock of private healthcare in Kenya.

But lately, the Nairobi Hospital has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Allegations of corruption and a high-stakes tug-of-war over its management have reached a fever pitch.

Stepping into the fray, the President, speaking as the Patron of the Kenya Hospital Association (KHA)-owned facility, has issued a stern warning.

He maintains that he will not sit idly by while those he terms as fraudsters attempt a hostile takeover of the institution.

"Senior doctors, senior professionals from Nairobi Hospitals approached me to save Nairobi Hospital from conmen, fraudsters and charlatans who wanted to expropriate it. Nairobi Hospital is a premier medical institution that serves the region. There is no way I am going to allow Nairobi Hospital to be taken hostage by fraudsters," he said on Tuesday.

But the President’s intervention in this murky affair is raising more legal question than answers.

Dr. Martin Oloo, Assistant Dean at Daystar University’s Faculty of Law, argues that the President’s Patron title carries more prestige than power.

According to Dr. Oloo, the Companies Act is clear, one is either a member or a director, there is no middle ground for a Patron.

“The Companies Act as it sits does not give a non-member any powers. The role of the President as Patron is ceremonial; it is not even in the stature of the Nairobi Hospital. The Act does not have the room for a Patron, you are either a director or holding the share as a guarantor.”

At the heart of the dispute is the unique structure of the Kenya Hospital Association (KHA). Unlike typical private hospitals, the KHA rans the Nairobi Hospital as a non-profit entity. It doesn't have shareholders looking for dividends.

“KHA is registered as a company limited by guarantee. It is not a company registered in shares. It does not make profits; it simply serves charitable purposes. It makes money and spends money against the purpose for which it was established,” says Dr. Oloo.

While the President may want to root out mismanagement, Dr. Oloo warns that any direct intervention would be standing on shaky legal ground. In the eyes of the law, the President is a friend of the hospital, not its boss.

“Having been invited as a patron, he cannot exercise any authority or powers over this company because there is no footing in the Act that allows him. So any attempt to say, 'as President, as Patron,' quoting the Company Act—that is a new law we would need to examine,” he said.

Instead of the hammer deployed by the President in this saga, legal scholars suggest a softer approach, stating that the President’s true power may lie in diplomacy.

“He can come in as an arbitrator, as an impartial person. Because the Patron must listen to the board, the doctors, and the members. He must seek to find out what the problem is—is it corruption, or is it mismanagement?" Posed Dr. Oloo.

As the Nairobi Hospital and it's board navigates these turbulent waters, it remains to be seen if the presidency and the patronage of the hospital will ward off the perceived detractors if the matter will be resolved in the courtrooms, where many other battles over the management of the hospital continue to be fought.