Host Country Agreements Not Surrender of Sovereignty, Says Ex-Diplomat

The sharpest fact in one or two punchy sentences: Andreas Katsouris, a former diplomat and advocate, has clarified the misunderstanding surrounding Host Country Agreements (HCAs), saying they don't reduce Kenya's sovereignty, but rather express it.

These agreements have been a point of contention in recent months, with many Kenyans believing they compromise the country's independence. However, the ex-diplomat says this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what HCAs entail.

An HCA is a legal framework that defines the relationship between a host state and an international organisation operating within its territory. In Kenya, these agreements have been a normal part of international cooperation between countries for many decades, with numerous governments and institutions relying on them to achieve mutual goals.

HCAs are not new or unusual; they set out practical matters, such as the legal status of an organisation, the privileges required for it to function, and the obligations it must respect. These agreements are not open-ended grants of authority, but rather negotiated instruments shaped by the host country's laws, interests, and constitutional order.

One of the main concerns surrounding HCAs appears to be immunity and privilege. These principles are not unique to HCAs, nor are they new concepts; they exist in diplomatic practice worldwide and serve a functional purpose. Immunity is often misunderstood, but it is not a licence for impunity; it is limited, defined, and tied to official functions.

Host Country Agreements are instruments of cooperation, allowing states to host organisations that operate across borders, often in complex and sensitive areas. To make the most of these collaborations, there must be a delicate balance between enabling that work and maintaining control, between being open and ensuring proper oversight.

The question before us is not whether to engage with the world; that choice has long been made. The question is how we do so and whether we approach these engagements with confidence in our systems. From where I sit, we must have confidence in our systems, knowing that they will allow us to navigate complex international relationships and emerge stronger.

Sovereignty is not asserted by withdrawing from international engagements; it is asserted by shaping them on our own terms, in line with our Constitution and national interest.

Andreas Katsouris, the author, is an advocate and ex-diplomat with extensive experience in Kenya's foreign affairs system. He has spent most of his years working to review and negotiate international agreements on behalf of the country and has witnessed how easily these agreements can be misunderstood outside the negotiation rooms.

At their core, HCAs are not new or unusual; they are legal frameworks that define the relationship between a host state and an international organisation operating within its territory. An HCA is not just a paper-based agreement but a living document that guides the relationship between the host country and the international organisation.

HCAs are a normal part of international cooperation between countries; they set out practical matters, such as the legal status of an organisation, the privileges required for it to function, and the obligations it must respect. In Kenya, that will is expressed through a defined constitutional process, ensuring that agreements are negotiated by the executive and scrutinised through established legal channels.

They are not open-ended grants of authority; they are negotiated instruments, shaped by the host country's laws, interests, and constitutional order. No agreement of this nature exists outside the sovereign will of the state, and in Kenya, that will is expressed through a defined constitutional process.

The current concern appears to centre on issues of immunity and privilege. These are not new concepts, nor are they unique to HCAs; they exist in diplomatic practice worldwide and serve a functional purpose. Immunity is often misunderstood, but it is not a licence for impunity; it is limited, defined, and tied to official functions.

Host Country Agreements are instruments of cooperation, allowing states to host organisations that operate across borders, often in complex and sensitive areas. Kenya has navigated this balance before; it has relied on its legal framework, its institutions, and its long-standing diplomatic practice. There is no reason to believe it cannot do so again.

Sovereignty is not asserted by withdrawing from international engagements; it is asserted by shaping them on our own terms, in line with our Constitution and national interest. We must have confidence in our systems that have allowed us to navigate complex international relationships and emerge stronger. That is the answer to the question before us.