The proposed leasing of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to the Indian conglomerate Adani Group has ignited a storm of controversy in Kenya, drawing in legal challenges, public debate, and fears of neocolonialism. The $1.85 billion Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) deal, which would see Adani upgrade, expand, and manage Kenya’s busiest airport for 30 years, is currently in limbo following a High Court suspension.

As Kenya navigates the complexities of foreign investment, we must critically assess the implications for sovereignty, economic impact, and long-term national interests.

Understanding the Adani Group

Founded in 1988 by Gautam Adani, the Adani Group has evolved from a modest commodity trading business into one of India’s most powerful multinational conglomerates, with operations spanning various sectors. From ports and airports to energy, real estate, agribusiness, and logistics, Adani’s reach is vast. As of 2024, the group has a market capitalization of over $200 billion and employs more than 23,000 people globally. Adani’s ability to successfully manage diverse, large-scale projects has placed it among the global elite, particularly in the infrastructure domain.

The group operates six of India’s major airports, including Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, one of the busiest in the country. This achievement underscores its operational competence in the aviation sector. Adani’s influence extends well beyond airports, with stakes in the energy sector making it a significant player in renewable and non-renewable energy sources. It is also the largest private power producer in India, reflecting its substantial involvement in the country’s energy landscape.

Adani – admiration and skepticism

Adani’s rapid expansion, however, has drawn both admiration and skepticism. The group’s success has been fueled by close ties with political figures in India, particularly with the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These connections have led to accusations of favoritism, with critics arguing that Adani’s influence has paved the way for regulatory decisions that disproportionately benefit the company. This has heightened public scrutiny of the conglomerate, particularly in situations involving international expansion, where concerns about governance and corporate practices often emerge.

Given Adani’s history, the group’s proposal to lease and upgrade Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) under a 30-year build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract raises important questions for Kenya. Is Adani Group the best partner for managing such a critical national asset, or could the deal reflect a broader geopolitical play that risks undermining Kenya’s sovereignty and long-term interests?

The JKIA Proposal: Promise and Peril

The proposal promises to inject nearly $2 billion into the upgrade and expansion of JKIA. On paper, this investment would transform the airport into a world-class hub capable of handling increased passenger and cargo traffic. The deal has been framed as a way to boost Kenya’s connectivity, attract international airlines, and secure the country’s position as a regional economic powerhouse. But beneath this enticing prospect lie concerns that must be carefully weighed.

Potential Benefits:

• Upgraded Infrastructure: The modernization of JKIA’s facilities could drastically improve its efficiency, passenger capacity, and overall global competitiveness.

• Economic Growth: The project could generate jobs in both the short and long term, providing a much-needed economic boost in a time of uncertainty.

• Enhanced Global Connectivity: Increased investment could attract more airlines and routes, improving Kenya’s status as an international transportation hub.

• Transfer of Expertise: The knowledge and technology brought in by Adani could benefit local industries, providing an opportunity for Kenyan professionals to upskill in airport management and operations.

Potential Drawbacks:

• Loss of Control: A 30-year lease essentially places the airport, a strategic national asset, in foreign hands for an extended period. The impact on Kenya’s sovereignty and its ability to steer the future direction of this asset is a major concern.

• Revenue Sharing Uncertainty: Who stands to benefit most financially from this deal? How much of the airport’s revenue will go to the Kenyan government versus Adani? The lack of clarity on profit-sharing raises questions about the long-term financial sustainability for Kenya.

• Local Business Impact: Will local businesses, especially those operating within the airport ecosystem, be able to compete with Adani’s established international networks? The risk of smaller Kenyan enterprises being sidelined cannot be ignored.

• National Security Concerns: Airports are critical national infrastructure. Placing such a crucial piece of Kenya’s sovereignty in the hands of a foreign company raises concerns about security and control, especially if the terms of the contract limit government oversight.

Kenya’s High Court Suspends the Deal

The legal suspension of the JKIA deal stems from a case filed by KHRC and LSK, who challenged the terms of the agreement. The two organizations argue that JKIA is a profitable and strategic national asset and should remain under Kenyan control. They claim the deal violates principles of transparency, accountability, and responsible use of public resources. Furthermore, they maintain that Kenya can independently raise the $1.85 billion needed to upgrade JKIA without ceding control to a foreign entity.

The two organizations also argue that the proposal exposes Kenyan taxpayers to undue financial risks and could lead to job losses by allowing Adani to import labor and obtain tax-free work visas. The suspension issued by the High Court, while temporary, allows time for a deeper consideration of the deal’s long-term implications. It also raises critical questions: Is Kenya giving up too much for infrastructure upgrades? Are the promised benefits worth the potential risks to its economic autonomy?

Adani’s Track Record: A Global Context

The global expansion of Adani Group offers valuable insights into how the conglomerate operates in foreign markets, particularly in developing economies. The group’s forays into international projects have been met with both successes and challenges, reflecting the complex realities of global infrastructure development.

Successes in Global Markets

Adani’s global footprint extends across sectors such as energy, ports, and infrastructure. In Australia, despite ongoing controversies, the group has invested heavily in the Carmichael coal mine, which aims to supply thermal coal to markets across Asia. The project, while facing environmental opposition, underscores Adani’s capability to manage large-scale, resource-driven operations on foreign soil.

Another noteworthy success is Adani’s involvement in Mozambique. In 2017, Adani Ports & SEZ entered into an agreement to develop and operate a terminal at the Port of Nacala, one of Africa’s largest deep-water natural harbors. The project, part of Mozambique’s broader infrastructure development plans, has been highlighted as a positive example of Adani’s ability to work within the African context, offering insights into potential synergies for the JKIA proposal. The Nacala port project has not only improved Mozambique’s connectivity but also contributed to boosting its trade potential within Africa and beyond.

African Projects: A Broader Lens

While Adani’s operations in Africa are still nascent compared to its activities in Asia and Australia, its presence on the continent has been steadily growing. The Nacala port project in Mozambique stands out as one of its more prominent African ventures, symbolizing the group’s willingness to engage with African markets in areas crucial to development—such as infrastructure and logistics.

Beyond Mozambique, Adani has also explored renewable energy projects in Africa, in line with global shifts toward sustainability. In recent years, the group has expressed interest in solar energy projects in countries like South Africa and Ethiopia, recognizing the continent’s immense potential for solar power generation. These ventures align with Africa’s need for cleaner, more sustainable energy sources, offering potential for knowledge transfer and economic development in renewable sectors.

However, the lack of a substantial track record in Africa raises legitimate concerns. Unlike other multinational companies with deep experience on the continent, Adani’s relatively limited engagement with African nations has led some observers to question whether it has the necessary expertise to navigate Africa’s political, economic, and cultural landscapes.

The issue at hand is not whether this deal is inherently good or bad, but whether it is structured in a way that ensures long-term benefits for Kenya, without undermining its sovereignty or compromising its economic interests. The real question is: How does Kenya make sure that it emerges the primary beneficiary of this partnership?

Past Controversies and Ongoing Projects

Despite its impressive growth, Adani’s history of controversial projects is another area of concern for Kenya. Across the globe, the group has been involved in several high-profile disputes that have led to environmental protests, labor challenges, and delays in project execution.

Bangladesh: Godda Thermal Power Station

Adani’s power plant project faced significant opposition due to the high cost of coal imports, environmental concerns, and the perceived imbalance in the power purchase agreement (PPA). Critics argued that the terms of the PPA heavily favored Adani, with Bangladesh committed to purchasing power at high rates, regardless of domestic demand, putting financial pressure on the country.

Sri Lanka: The Colombo Port Terminal

In 2021, Adani was set to invest $500 million in the East Container Terminal at Colombo Port, a crucial asset in Sri Lanka’s maritime economy. However, the project was canceled following widespread protests by Sri Lankan workers and opposition groups, who feared that Adani’s involvement would give India too much control over Sri Lanka’s strategic port infrastructure. The cancellation highlighted the sensitivity surrounding foreign investments in national assets, particularly in countries wary of regional superpowers like India.

Australia: The Carmichael Coal Mine

Adani’s most notable controversy is the Carmichael coal mine project in Queensland, Australia, which began in 2010 and faced years of delays due to strong opposition from environmental activists, Indigenous communities, and climate advocates. Criticized for its potential impact on global carbon emissions and the Great Barrier Reef, the project was ultimately approved but significantly scaled back. Financial difficulties and backlash led Adani to self-finance parts of the project after global banks refused funding.

These global examples raise critical questions for Kenya: Will the JKIA project follow a similar trajectory, with unforeseen consequences down the line? And how can Kenya ensure that it doesn’t fall into the same traps experienced by Australia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh?

Foreign Management of National Assets: A Global Perspective

The proposal for Adani Group to lease and upgrade Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) must be considered within a broader global context. Around the world, nations have wrestled with the implications of foreign entities managing critical infrastructure. Reviewing various international cases offers valuable insights into both the potential advantages and drawbacks of such arrangements.

In Brazil, Singapore’s Changi Airports International has managed Galeão International Airport in Rio de Janeiro since 2014. This partnership has led to significant improvements in efficiency and service quality, demonstrating how foreign expertise can enhance airport operations and the overall passenger experience. Similarly, DP World from Dubai has been managing the Port of Callao in Peru since 2006. Their investment and management have notably increased the port’s capacity and efficiency, showcasing how foreign involvement can revitalize key infrastructure and boost global trade connectivity.

However, not all instances of foreign management have been without controversy. The 99-year lease of Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka to China Merchants Port Holdings in 2017 has been criticized as a “debt trap.” Concerns about Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and long-term economic repercussions highlight the risks associated with extensive foreign control over strategic assets. Additionally, while Vinci Airports of France has generally succeeded in privatizing Portuguese airports, this has led to higher fees and concerns about the erosion of national control over crucial infrastructure.

These global examples raise critical questions for Kenya as it contemplates the Adani proposal: What safeguards should be in place to ensure that foreign management of national assets is beneficial to the host country? How can Kenya balance the need for foreign investment with the necessity of maintaining control over its strategic infrastructure? Addressing these questions will be essential in crafting a deal that aligns with Kenya’s long-term interests while leveraging the benefits of global expertise.

Neocolonialism: A Lingering Fear?

The debate around foreign management of national assets, particularly in Africa, often evokes the specter of neocolonialism. Even though formal colonialism ended decades ago, African nations still grapple with the legacy of economic dependency and unequal power dynamics in their relationships with foreign investors. In the case of the Adani Group’s proposed lease of JKIA, many critics fear that such a deal could perpetuate these dynamics.
Neocolonialism refers to the subtle but pervasive ways in which former colonial powers—and, increasingly, multinational corporations—continue to exert control over the economic and political systems of formerly colonized nations. It is a form of domination that is less overt but equally damaging, as it often traps countries in cycles of dependency, where they rely on foreign capital, technology, and expertise to manage critical infrastructure.

In the case of Adani’s proposal, several questions arise: Will Kenya benefit equitably from the deal, or will the bulk of profits flow back to Adani’s headquarters in India? Will local businesses and professionals be given opportunities to thrive, or will they be marginalized in favor of imported labor and expertise? Moreover, what safeguards are in place to ensure that Kenya retains control over its national asset in the long term, rather than ceding too much authority to a foreign entity?

These concerns are not unique to Kenya. Across Africa, countries like Zambia, Angola, and Ghana have faced similar dilemmas in their partnerships with foreign companies, particularly from China. The notorious example of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, looms large in such discussions. The fear is that, in pursuit of short-term gains, African nations might inadvertently sacrifice their sovereignty and long-term development prospects.

For Kenya, the key challenge is to ensure that the terms of any agreement with Adani Group are structured to prioritize national interests, foster local development, and avoid the pitfalls of neocolonial dependency. This requires strong governance, transparent negotiations, and active involvement from civil society to hold both the government and foreign partners accountable.

Finding the Right Balance: Next Steps for Kenya

As Kenya navigates the complexities of foreign investment in infrastructure, finding the right balance will be essential. A successful partnership with Adani, or any other foreign entity, will require clear legal frameworks that safeguard national interests, ensure equitable distribution of profits, and protect local employment opportunities.

The Kenyan government must also engage in transparent negotiations, ensuring that the public is fully informed about the terms of the deal and the potential risks involved. Strong local involvement in the project is essential to prevent Kenya from becoming overly reliant on foreign expertise at the expense of its own industries.

Moreover, any foreign-managed project should prioritize knowledge transfer, ensuring that Kenyan professionals are trained and equipped to eventually take over the management of critical infrastructure. A deal with Adani can only be considered a success if it leaves Kenya stronger, more self-reliant, and better prepared for future challenges

The Path Ahead: Deal Worth Reconsidering?

As Kenya contemplates the Adani Group’s proposal, it is essential to critically assess the potential benefits and risks. Can Kenya negotiate a deal that brings much-needed investment while maintaining control over its assets? Will Adani’s involvement lead to the same controversies seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, or is there a path forward that safeguards Kenya’s economic sovereignty?

More broadly, this controversy prompts a deeper reflection on the relationship between developing countries and multinational corporations. When foreign entities manage national assets, are these countries truly benefiting, or are they giving up control in exchange for short-term gains? And at what point does foreign investment morph into neocolonial control?

These are not easy questions to answer, but they are questions that Kenya—and many other nations—must confront as they navigate the complex world of global finance and infrastructure development.

The suspension of the deal by Kenya’s High Court presents a vital opportunity to reconsider the terms, ensuring that Kenya’s sovereignty and long-term economic health remain at the forefront of any agreement.

In the end, the Adani-JKIA proposal is more than just a business deal. It is a litmus test for Kenya’s future, raising fundamental questions about sovereignty, development, and the role of foreign corporations in shaping national destinies. Will Kenya find a way to balance these competing interests, or will this deal become another chapter in the long history of foreign influence in Africa? Only time will tell. But as this debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the stakes are high, and the decisions made today will reverberate far into the future.