Want to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact UsWant to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact Us
Read this story on Esheria.
Introduction
A report by the Kenyan parliament into the conduct of troops stationed at a British military base close to the town of Nanyuki in Kenya has alleged human rights violations, environmental destruction and sexual abuse by British soldiers. The inquiry into the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (Batuk) was carried out by Kenya’s departmental committee on defencе, intelligence and foreign relations. It collected testimony at public hearings in Laikipia county and Samburu county, and also received oral and written submissions from affected civilians, victims, community leaders, civil society organisations and relevant public agencies. The report notes with concern that;, “Throughout the inquiry, the committee encountered significant institutional resistance and non-cooperation from Batuk, which persistently declined to appear before the committee and instead invoked claims of diplomatic immunity,” the report said.
Allegations against the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (BATUK) include sexual abuse, gender-based violence, and unresolved cases such as the death of Agnes Wanjiru. Military exercises have caused extensive environmental destruction, including fires, soil erosion, and loss of grazing land. Communities also report human rights violations, harassment, and injuries from unexploded ordnance, resulting in fatalities, livestock deaths, and long-term ecological and social harm, raising concerns of impunity and neglect.
In this article, I intend to analyse the legal framework that governs British military operations in Kenya, the nature of the alleged abuses, the gaps in accountability mechanisms and the broader implications for both states
When did it start?
The accusations facing British forces in Kenya have not emerged in a vacuum. They come after years of tension triggered by environmental damage, unexplained deaths and other unresolved claims. Many Kenyan families living near training sites have long argued that the activities of foreign troops have left them with destroyed grazing areas, unexploded ordnance, fires and injuries that have rarely led to compensation.
The most painful aspect of these complaints is the perception that local communities do not receive equal treatment when harm is caused by foreign soldiers. Some residents feel abandoned by their government and ignored by the British authorities. This crisis of trust is reinforced when cases remain unresolved for years, as seen in the death of Agnes Wanjiru, who was allegedly murdered by a British soldier in 2012. The case became a symbol of perceived impunity because no one has been prosecuted in Kenya or the United Kingdom despite public outcry.
Local leaders in Laikipia and Samburu have also expressed concern that training exercises have grown more disruptive as land pressures increase and pastoralist communities struggle to balance livestock needs with reduced safe grazing space. Fires allegedly linked to military activities, including the large blaze at Lolldaiga in 2021, damaged water sources and vegetation and pushed the relationship between the army and residents to its lowest point. The accumulation of these grievances means that the new claims involving sexual abuse and other serious violations are not viewed as isolated incidents. They are seen as part of a wider pattern that demands careful legal and diplomatic attention.
What does the law say?
The 2021 Defence Cooperation Agreement sets the legal framework that governs the presence of British soldiers in Kenya. It states that visiting troops must obey the Constitution and laws of Kenya at all times, except where the Agreement provides otherwise as enshrined in Article 3 of the Agreeemnt.It is important to note that jurisdiction is shared. Kenya has the primary right to try offences that are not part of a soldier’s official duty, while the United Kingdom retains jurisdiction over official duty offences unless Kenya requests a waiver under Article 25 of the Agreement.
Importantly, Article 25 also declares that sexual offences, torture, degrading treatment, robbery and similar crimes can never be classified as official duty, meaning Kenya must prosecute such cases. This reflects Kenya’s constitutional duties under Articles 26, 28 and 29 to protect life, dignity and security of the person. Civil claims, including compensation for injury or death, fall under Kenyan courts through Article 11, but victims often struggle with slow and complex procedures.
Communities that lack legal representation or financial resources face serious obstacles when trying to prove harm or seek redress. The fact that some claims involve grave offences such as sexual violence creates further complications because they require immediate forensic evidence and strong witness protection systems. These legal gaps now raise serious concerns about whether the current framework offers timely accountability and whether it adequately protects Kenya’s sovereignty and the rights guaranteed under Article 48 of the Constitution.
Human Rights Obligations and the Duty to Protect Victims
The Defence Cooperation Agreement places clear duties on both Kenya and the United Kingdom to protect civilians from harm and to ensure accountability whenever British troops are accused of wrongdoing. Article 23 of the Agreement requires visiting forces to respect the dignity, culture and safety of Kenyan communities and specifically directs them to avoid conduct that harms women, children or other vulnerable groups. Article 24 reinforces this by giving the Inter Governmental Liaison Committee a direct responsibility to safeguard victims during investigations and to ensure that both states cooperate, share evidence and keep proceedings transparent and open to the public
Most importantly, Article 25 states that certain crimes can never be treated as “official duty”, including sexual offences, torture, degrading treatment, slavery and robbery. These offences fall automatically under Kenyan jurisdiction, which reflects the state’s constitutional duty to protect the rights to life, dignity, security of the person and freedom from violence as guaranteed under Articles 26, 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The Agreement also supports the right to an effective remedy under Article 48 of the Constitution by allowing victims to pursue compensation for death, injury or sexual exploitation through Kenya’s courts under Article 11 of the DCA. Together, these provisions make the protection of victims a shared and enforceable responsibility of both governments.
Accountability, Reparations and the Future of Defence Cooperation
The question of accountability now sits at the centre of Kenya’s relationship with the United Kingdom. For many Kenyans, justice cannot rely on diplomatic statements. It must include real prosecutions where evidence supports them and clear consequences for soldiers who break the law. The Defence Cooperation Agreement already recognises this need. Article 25 makes it clear that serious crimes such as sexual offences, torture, degrading treatment and robbery can never be treated as official duty and must therefore fall under Kenyan jurisdiction This aligns with the Constitution, which obligates the state to protect dignity, security of the person and the right to justice under Articles 28, 29 and 48.
Reparations are also essential. Article 11 requires the United Kingdom to compensate victims for death, injury or damage caused by its forces, including cases involving sexual exploitation However, many victims still face slow and difficult claims processes. Improving this system by creating a joint claims tribunal with clear timelines would help rebuild trust. This article supports the need to revisit the Agreement to ensure that all serious offences committed in Kenya are automatically tried in Kenyan courts and that training areas are subject to stronger oversight, including environmental audits as required under Article 8I believe that a renewed commitment to transparency, victim protection and respect for Kenyan law would strengthen cooperation while affirming sovereignty and human dignity as the guiding principles of this partnership.
Conclusion
The accusations facing British troops in Kenya represent more than a diplomatic challenge. They speak to a deeper struggle about how foreign military forces should conduct themselves on African soil and what mechanisms must exist to protect local communities. The long history of unresolved cases has eroded trust and exposed gaps in the legal framework that governs military cooperation.
Kenya and the United Kingdom must respond with seriousness, urgency and respect for the rights of victims. Independent investigations, reforms to accountability systems and survivor centred support are essential steps. If handled with transparency and sincerity, this moment can help rebuild confidence and strengthen a partnership that remains strategically important.
But if the response is slow, defensive or dismissive, public faith in the defence relationship will continue to decline. Justice cannot wait. The communities living near BATUK training zones deserve a future where their rights, their land and their dignity are fully protected.
