Kenya’s government has signed yet another Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a Western business hub—this time with the Netherlands. The agreement, signed during the state visit of King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima, aims to promote Dutch investments in Kenya and deepen bilateral economic ties.
While the ceremony was packaged as a moment of progress under Kenya’s Bottom-up Economic Transformation Agenda (BETA), the move raises deeper questions about the nature of these foreign partnerships and whether they truly empower Kenyan enterprises or simply reinforce external control over strategic economic sectors.
Speaking at the event, Principal Secretary for Investment Promotion Abubakar Hassan Abubakar praised the Netherlands as one of Kenya’s largest investment partners. He said the agreement reflects the government’s commitment to creating a favorable environment for foreign investors. Yet he stopped short of offering specifics on how Kenyan-owned businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, stand to benefit in tangible terms.
The Netherlands Business Hub Kenya, represented by its Chairman Jules Delahaije, positioned the agreement as a model for public-private cooperation. According to Delahaije, such partnerships will improve the local investment climate. But this language—familiar to those observing foreign investment trends in Africa—often masks the unequal power dynamics at play. Public-private cooperation in African contexts has frequently resulted in foreign dominance of key sectors, minimal technology transfer, and little long-term benefit to local economies.
General Manager of the Hub, Yvonne Oerlemans, echoed the usual talking points about connectivity, knowledge-sharing, and opportunities for growth. What remains unclear is how this deal addresses the structural challenges facing Kenyan entrepreneurs—from capital access to global market entry barriers and intellectual property inequities.
Dutch Ambassador Henk-Jan Bakker described the agreement as a major step forward in bilateral relations. But stripped of diplomatic language, it’s worth asking: Are these agreements instruments of mutual development, or are they modern tools of soft economic control?
Kenya is not alone. Across the continent, business hubs from Europe and North America are multiplying, inserting themselves as intermediaries between African governments and the private sector. Many of these foreign entities operate under the banner of “investment facilitation,” yet often serve to protect external commercial interests while shaping local regulatory frameworks in their favor.
This MoU may indeed lead to some infrastructure or trade opportunities. But without strong, transparent accountability mechanisms—and a deliberate strategy to empower Kenyan ownership within these ventures—such agreements risk replicating the very imbalances that Africa has fought for decades to dismantle.
It is time African nations approach these deals with a clear doctrine: partnerships must build African capacity, prioritize local content, and enhance sovereignty. Otherwise, Africa continues to play host while others dictate the rules of engagement.
Key Questions:
- What are the terms of this MoU, and do they guarantee local benefit?
- How will this agreement affect Kenyan SMEs and youth-driven enterprises?
- Are there binding commitments for technology transfer or local hiring?
- Who audits these investment pacts—and on whose terms?
Africa doesn’t lack partnerships. It lacks fair ones. Until that changes, agreements like this remain suspect—not because cooperation is bad, but because history has taught us to read the fine print very carefully.
