SANG: How opposition missed a great chance at Kenya-France summit

The Kenyan opposition may have missed a rare opportunity to do serious international networking while Nairobi was hosting one of the largest diplomatic gatherings on the continent.

The just-concluded Africa Forward Summit brought to Kenya African heads of state and government, France, the African Union, international financial institutions, development partners, business leaders, innovators and investors.

There were more than 40 heads of state and government and representatives from nearly all countries in Africa, some visiting Kenya for the first time.

The summit’s stated aim was to produce concrete commitments around investment, innovation, growth and a new Africa-France partnership model. President Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Summit together with President William Ruto.

The meeting was co-sponsored by Bpifrance, one of France’s largest public investment funds with more than $100 billion (Sh12.9 trillion) in assets.

There was also Business France which is France’s national agency for international business development; it helps French companies enter foreign markets, promotes French exports and also markets France as a destination for foreign investment. Then there was Proparco, which is France’s development finance institution for the private sector, a subsidiary of the French Development Agency, AFD.

The city was abuzz with thousands of delegates, the event also showcased many cultural exhibitions and representations. The business forum brought together leading organisations and businessmen from across Africa, with discussions around credit reform, investment costs and Africa’s access to capital.

That was not a small gathering. That is a diplomatic showground. The Kenyan opposition gave it a wide berth, perhaps imagining it to be another Ruto function. It portrayed them as tactically energetic but strategically thin.

Good at attacking Ruto, yes. But not yet convincing as a team ready to inherit the diplomatic burdens of the Kenyan state. In fact, they even opposed the event outright, including a word from Kalonzo Musyoka, one-time Foreign Minister, who reportedly termed it a waste of time.

A serious opposition does not have to praise the government in order to recognise a national opportunity. It can criticise President Ruto at home and still engage visiting leaders, diplomats, investors, policy institutions and international media.

Many times, former opposition leader, Raila Odinga, when not cooperating with the government, sought audience and met foreign diplomats and visiting heads of state and was an invited guest at State House.

That is how mature opposition politics works. You separate the state from the government of the day. Kenya belongs to all Kenyans, not to Kenya Kwanza, those in high office, or President Ruto, for that matter.

Instead, some opposition voices reduced the summit to a Ruto event, or dismissed the visiting dignitaries as tourists. That portrays the opposition as too narrowly trapped in domestic anti-Ruto politics, unable to see the wider diplomatic and economic stage. It suggests a movement more comfortable with complaint than with statecraft.

And that is the real problem.

If the opposition hopes to govern Kenya, it must show that it can operate at the level of government-in-waiting. That means building relationships with foreign missions, regional leaders, development partners, investors, think tanks and multilateral institutions. It means showing the world that it has a credible alternative foreign policy, not merely a louder domestic grievance.

The absence of visible opposition engagement at such a summit creates three unfortunate impressions.

First, it suggests diplomatic unreadiness. International actors look for continuity, seriousness and predictability. If opposition leaders avoid or ridicule major diplomatic platforms simply because they are hosted by the current government, they appear unprepared for the responsibilities of power.

Second, it weakens their claim to national leadership. A national leader should be able to say, “I disagree with this government, but I welcome our guests to Kenya and will engage them on behalf of the Kenyan people.” That would have been statesmanlike.

Third, it leaves the ruling side to monopolise international visibility. Diplomacy is also optics. Photographs, side meetings, policy conversations, business forums, corridor introductions, all these opportunities matter. By staying away rhetorically or politically, the opposition allowed the government to occupy the entire diplomatic space.

The real question is this: why did the Kenyan opposition not use the presence of so many international actors in Nairobi to project itself as a serious, credible and globally connected alternative government?

That, indeed, was the missed opportunity.

The writer is a political commentator