The Billionaire We Didn’t Ask For: Why Kenya Is Saying No To Bill Gates

In a move that has sent ripples through diplomatic and development circles, the Government of Kenya and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have mutually agreed to terminate the Host Country Agreement (HCA) that had previously formalized the Foundation’s operations in the country. While the announcement appears amicable on the surface, behind it lies a deepening wave of public resentment and suspicion toward one of the world’s most influential philanthropic organizations.

The Gates Foundation, often portrayed as a global benefactor, has faced mounting scrutiny in Kenya. For years, it operated under a veil of generosity—supporting health, agriculture, and education initiatives—but critics argue that beneath the surface lies a playbook of soft power, experimental policies, and unchecked influence.

Read Also: Four New Members Join Co-Chairs Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates

The Mask of Philanthropy

Bill Gates, through his Foundation, has long been a dominant figure in shaping health policy across the Global South. Kenya, often viewed as a model country for donor-funded programs, has been a strategic partner. From vaccination campaigns to agricultural reform, the Gates Foundation has poured billions into Kenya—often sidestepping local institutions in favor of NGOs and private contractors with ties to global pharmaceutical and agribusiness giants.

To some, this was benevolence. To many Kenyans, it reeked of neocolonialism.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune,” says Mwangi Njoroge, a Nairobi-based policy analyst. “When Gates funds public health, it’s not about saving lives; it’s about deciding which lives are worth saving—and how.”

The GMOs and Gates’ Quiet War on African Agriculture

Perhaps the most explosive chapter in Gates’ Kenyan saga lies in agriculture. The Foundation was a key driver behind the push to introduce Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into Kenya’s food system. Through its ties to the controversial AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) and direct partnerships with companies like Monsanto, the Foundation advocated for the liberalization of Kenya’s seed laws.

Critics accuse the Gates Foundation of pushing smallholder farmers into dependency on foreign seed and fertilizer companies—undermining indigenous farming practices and food sovereignty.

“They came to save us but ended up selling us,” says farmer activist Zipporah Mumo from Kitale. “Now we can’t plant without buying seed. That’s not agriculture—that’s captivity.”

In 2022, the lifting of Kenya’s ban on GMOs sparked public outrage. Civil society groups staged protests, questioning not just the science but the politics of food. Gates, often silent, became the focal point of blame. The belief that Kenya was being used as a laboratory for biotech experiments—without adequate local consent—fueled the fire.

Public Health or Public Control?

The COVID-19 pandemic magnified fears about the Gates Foundation’s influence. With global health institutions struggling to maintain independence, Gates emerged as a de facto spokesperson for the pandemic response—despite holding no public office.

In Kenya, his involvement in vaccine procurement and rollout raised eyebrows. Questions surfaced about transparency, cost, and the prioritization of certain vaccines over others. Critics argued that the Foundation’s role blurred the line between philanthropy and control, especially in a country with limited public accountability mechanisms.

The pushback was fierce. Influencers, health experts, and youth activists accused the Foundation of “vaccine colonialism,” claiming that Kenya’s public health system was being hijacked by foreign interests masquerading as saviors.

A Symbol of Outsourced Sovereignty

What makes the termination of the Host Country Agreement especially symbolic is that it reflects growing Kenyan discomfort with donor dependency. For decades, Kenya’s development blueprint has been skewed by the priorities of well-funded foreign entities, often at the expense of democratic accountability.

“The Gates Foundation’s withdrawal is not a loss—it’s an awakening,” said a former Ministry of Health official who requested anonymity. “It signals that we are beginning to question who we allow to shape our future—and why.”

Social media played a key role in shaping public opinion. On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Kenyans trended hashtags like #GatesOutOfKenya and #MyFoodMyChoice, often tying the Foundation to broader narratives of Western imperialism and exploitation.

Even religious leaders joined the resistance. In 2023, a group of bishops publicly questioned the motives behind Gates-funded contraceptive and family planning programs, accusing the Foundation of promoting population control rather than empowering communities.

The End of a Chapter—or the Start of a Reckoning?

While the mutual termination of the HCA is being spun as a bureaucratic decision, the subtext is political. Kenya is signaling a desire to chart its own path—one that is not dictated by billionaires with global ambitions and questionable accountability.

This isn’t to say that the Gates Foundation won’t continue its operations in other ways. But the loss of formal diplomatic recognition and operational immunity is a sharp rebuke.

In a country where corruption, poverty, and inequality remain rife, one might assume that aid is welcome in any form. But Kenya’s message is clear: not all help is helpful, and not all heroes wear lab coats.

The billionaire we didn’t ask for is packing up. And for many Kenyans, it’s not a loss—it’s a liberation.

Read Also: The Bill Gates’ Shadow And Ruto’s Vaccine Controversy: A Betrayal of Kenyan Farmers