NAIROBI, Kenya Jun 6 – Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale has defended the Government’s Ebola preparedness and quarantine measures, arguing that Kenya’s response framework is legally grounded, scientifically informed and necessary to protect public health amid the regional outbreak.
In a detailed replying affidavit filed in court, the Health Cabinet Secretary opposed constitutional petitions lodged by Katiba Institute and the Law Society of Kenya challenging the legality and constitutional basis of the Government’s Ebola preparedness strategy.
The petitions question the establishment and operationalisation of quarantine facilities in Kenya, raising concerns over legality, proportionality and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Duale told the court that the Ministry of Health is acting within its legal mandate under Executive Order No. 1 of 2025, which assigns the ministry responsibility over public health matters, including quarantine administration and disease surveillance.
According to the Cabinet Secretary, Kenya’s preparedness measures were triggered by the Ebola outbreak reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, which raised concerns over possible cross-border transmission into Kenya.
He said the Ministry relied on expert technical guidance from the Director-General for Health regarding the epidemiological characteristics of the outbreak and the heightened regional risk posed by population movement across East Africa.
Kenya Relies on WHO and International Health Regulations
In the affidavit, Duale anchored the Government’s response on the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, which he described as a binding global legal framework governing preparedness and response to infectious disease outbreaks.
He cited Article 2 of the regulations, which seeks to “prevent, prepare for, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease.”
The Health CS further relied on provisions empowering the World Health Organization (WHO) to coordinate responses to international public health emergencies.
According to Duale, the WHO Director-General on May 16, 2026 declared the Ebola outbreak in parts of the DRC and Uganda a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), triggering heightened international response obligations among member states.
He also noted that the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) classified the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of Continental Security.
The Cabinet Secretary told the court that Ebola is a severe and often fatal viral disease transmitted through direct contact with infected bodily fluids.
He explained that the virus has an incubation period of between two and 21 days and that early symptoms often resemble other infectious illnesses, making early diagnosis difficult without specialised laboratory testing.
According to the affidavit, diagnosis requires advanced testing methods such as RT-PCR and ELISA to confirm infection.
Duale warned that the outbreak had already caused devastating effects in the region, citing over 1,000 suspected cases and more than 250 deaths in the DRC, while Uganda had confirmed infections linked to cross-border transmission.
He further noted that healthcare workers had also been infected while treating Ebola patients, highlighting the dangers faced by frontline medical personnel.
The Government maintains that its preparedness measures, including enhanced disease surveillance, strengthened laboratory systems, border health screening, infection prevention protocols and quarantine readiness, are consistent with WHO recommendations issued following the PHEIC declaration.
Duale argued that the measures are proportionate, science-based and necessary to prevent the importation and local spread of Ebola in Kenya.
He also invoked the East African Community treaty, saying partner states are obligated to cooperate in controlling communicable diseases that threaten regional public health.
The case is expected to test the balance between emergency public health powers and constitutional protections as the court determines whether Kenya’s Ebola response framework meets legal and constitutional standards.
