By Ken Bosire
The two-day Africa Forward Summit closed yesterday in Nairobi with two irreconcilable verdicts. Inside the Kenyatta International Convention Centre, a communiqué spoke of co-investment, partnership of equals, and €23 billion in pledges to reshape Africa’s economic trajectory. Outside, on the pavement, the air carried a different message: tear gas and chants of “Hands off Africa!”
Co-hosted by President William Ruto and President Emmanuel Macron, the inaugural summit marked a deliberate pivot in France-Africa relations. The language was new — out went paternalistic aid, in came investment-led partnership. For Paris, it is a recalibration after losing ground in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. By choosing Nairobi, France signalled a doctrine of working through stable Anglophone economies to rebuild influence. Macron and Ruto framed the gathering as a turning point, one that could position Africa as a more equal player on the global stage.
Also Read
The numbers gave that claim weight. On the opening day, delegates announced €23 billion in investment pledges: €14 billion from French firms and €9 billion from African companies, targeting energy, technology, and agriculture. Eleven Kenya-France memoranda were signed, covering commuter rail upgrades, Nairobi’s transit system, port modernization, a new national electricity control center, the rehabilitation of Masinga Dam, and the expansion of fiber optic technology to public services. Kenya used the moment to position itself as the gateway for French investors looking to access the African Continental Free Trade Area. The summit’s structure stressed co-construction and value addition within the continent, rather than the export of raw materials under old donor-recipient terms.
Protest, Tear Gas and Public Skepticism
But a few hundred metres from the glass doors, the summit looked different. Booker Ngesa Omole, General Secretary of the Communist Party Marxist–Kenya, stood near the cordon and told reporters that France had simply moved its stage. “They swapped military fatigues for tailored suits and ‘Green Growth’ slogans, but we can see through the veil,” he said.
The air thickened with the scent of expensive French cologne drifting from the venue and the sharper sting of Kenyan tear gas deployed when five youth unfurled a banner reading: “Africa Is Not For Sale.
The five were arrested and charged with offensive conduct and disruption of peace, then released on Ksh 50,000 bond each. For them, the offence was speaking out loud what others whispered: that the summit was less about innovation than about rebranding influence.
Protesters’ chants were direct — “France out of Africa!”, “Reparations, not handouts!” — and many addressed Macron personally, reflecting a deep distrust rooted in history. They were not alone in their skepticism. Opposition leader Kalonzo Musyoka dismissed the event as nonsense and a waste of time, arguing that Nairobi was chosen only because France’s foothold in Francophone West Africa is slipping.
The state answered back firmly. Prime Cabinet Secretary and Foreign Affairs CS Musalia Mudavadi accused critics of sabotage and jealousy, insisting the summit was designed to unlock investment and open space for Africa to act as a global driver rather than a bystander.
The split was visible even in the city’s civic life. On the same day the summit opened, rights activists convened the Pan-Africanism Summit Against Imperialism at Ufungamano House near the University of Nairobi. Organised by CPM-K and the PASAI Working Committee, it brought together anti-imperialist parties, labour movements, youth groups, and progressive forces from across Africa and the Global South. Their goal was to articulate an alternative agenda: expose neocolonial patterns, build networks from the Sahel to the Great Lakes, advance reparative justice, and produce a “Nairobi Declaration from Below” that reflected the views of ordinary people rather than political elites.
The Real Test Begins After the Summit
The tension between these two summits captures the core paradox of Nairobi 2026. On one side, the promise of a shift toward genuine partnership. Paris is moving away from direct military presence toward diplomacy, investment, and security cooperation. For African governments, that opens room to diversify partners beyond China and the United States and to negotiate harder on value addition. For Kenya, it is a chance to cement its role as a regional diplomatic and logistics hub.
On the other side, the persistence of old patterns. Critics argue that this is not a new policy but a rebranding of influence, a change in rhetoric without abandoning the core objectives of resource access, elite alignment, and political leverage. The test, they say, will be in execution. Pledges are easy; converting memoranda into working dams, rail lines, and fiber networks is not. With debt levels already high across the continent, the structure of these deals — who carries the risk, who controls the terms — will determine whether they lighten the burden or deepen it. And there remains the question of inclusion: whether these high-level agreements translate into better services and jobs for the mwananchi, or whether they benefit primarily corporate elites.
For now, the summit’s legacy rests in two lingering scents. One is cologne, expensive and imported, a reminder of old power learning new manners. The other is tear gas, cheap and local, a reminder that the street still believes Africa’s future should not be negotiated without its voice.
-Mr. Bosire is a consulting editor and a member of the Kisii Press Club advisory board. This article was published in the Sunday Standard.
