Why Granting Immunity to GCA in Kenya Is a Recipe for Impunity, Corruption And Abuse Of Human Rights

It is no exaggeration to say that what the Kenyan government is currently doing with the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) is one of the most alarming confabs of power, influence, and opacity we have seen in recent years. The silence of mainstream media and the tepid response from civil society only make this more dangerous. I write this not as idle criticism but as a demand: Ruto’s government must revoke the immunity being given to GCA, force full transparency, or see that organization ousted entirely from Kenya.

Let me start by laying down the fundamentals. The GCA is an international nonprofit whose mission is to accelerate climate adaptation action.  Its declared work includes influencing adaptation finance, pushing policy reforms, convening public–private partnership forums, and facilitating “solutions” from the global to the local.  But that mission, noble as it may sound, does not give it carte blanche to operate above scrutiny, beyond accountability, and outside the law.

In recent weeks, several alarming developments have come to light. The Dutch government, originally a major funder, has announced it will stop financing the Rotterdam operations of GCA after next year.  The United Kingdom has also reportedly withdrawn support.  Donors are raising questions about governance, value for money, and political entanglements.  Now Kenya is stepping in — seemingly to offer sanctuary — by granting the GCA sweeping immunities that effectively shield it from our laws.

These immunities are not trivial. According to a detailed exposé published by Kenya Insights, the immunities include protection from lawsuits, tax exemptions, inviolability of premises, and rules that authorities cannot enter GCA premises without consent.  This is the kind of legal architecture usually reserved for sovereign states, diplomatic missions, or multilateral intergovernmental organizations — not a private NGO.  In effect, GCA would become a “state within a state,” a privileged enclave operating parallel to the Kenyan government, yet with less accountability.

Now consider the deeper red flags. Patrick Verkooijen, the Dutch national who heads GCA, was appointed Chancellor of the University of Nairobi in January 2024, well before many of these legal privileges were formalized.  This is a clear conflict of interest waiting to be exploited. GCA awarded a €1.2 million contract to the University of Nairobi for climate adaptation projects — projects on which little is publicly known about outcomes, deliverables, or audits.  So the same person is managing the university that gets payments from the NGO that he also leads. If that smells of capture, it is because it almost certainly is capture.

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

The Dutch citing governance concerns is no small matter. When a major donor throws up red flags, we ought to pay attention. Yet Kenya is doubling down. Through Legal Notice No. 82 and parliamentary action, sweeping privileges for GCA were approved in a matter of weeks.  The parliamentary process was cursory and lacked rigorous scrutiny.  There was little public debate, and even fewer safeguards to protect citizens or affected communities in case GCA’s projects cause harm.

What makes this even more dangerous is the nature of the work GCA does. Climate adaptation is not an abstract, benign field. It often implicates land use, infrastructure investments, water rights, relocation, carbon markets, and development financing. Decisions in those spheres affect farmers, pastoralists, communities, municipal governments, ecosystems, local budgets, and future liabilities. If GCA wants blanket immunity for its projects, then affected communities lose legal recourse when projects go wrong. Imagine a GCA-backed irrigation or flood control project that displaces farmers or imposes unfair costs. Under ordinary arrangements, citizens can sue, seek compensation, or injunctions. Under GCA’s shield, those options could be wiped out.

Even more chilling: under the new privileges, GCA’s documents and archives are inviolable, authorities cannot seize assets, and import/export of goods for “official use” are duty-free.  Essentially, GCA becomes a legal black box. If someone wants to find out how contracts were awarded, or whether funds were misused, or how decisions were made, they would be blocked.

Some may say: “But GCA is a climate-adaptation entity doing good work, we don’t want to hamper that.” I counter: good work must stand scrutiny,