By Ken Bosire
The two-day Africa Forward Summit concluded yesterday in Nairobi with two contradictory outcomes. Inside the Kenyatta International Convention Centre, a communiqué discussed co-investment, partnerships of equals, and €23 billion in pledges intended to reshape Africa’s economic path. Outside, on the street, the air carried a different message: tear gas and cries of “Hands off Africa!”
Co-hosted by President William Ruto and President Emmanuel Macron, the inaugural summit represented a deliberate shift in France-Africa relations. The language was different – out went paternalistic aid, in came investment-led partnership. For Paris, it is a realignment after losing influence in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. By selecting Nairobi, France signaled a doctrine of working through stable Anglophone economies to rebuild its presence. Macron and Ruto described the gathering as a turning point, one that could establish Africa as a more equal participant on the global stage.
The numbers gave that claim substance. On the opening day, delegates announced €23 billion in investment pledges: €14 billion from French companies and €9 billion from African firms, focusing on 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 event to position itself as the gateway for French investors seeking access to the African Continental Free Trade Area. The summit’s structure emphasized co-construction and value addition within the continent, rather than the export of raw materials under traditional donor-recipient arrangements.
Protest, Tear Gas and Public Doubt
But a few hundred meters from the glass doors, the summit appeared different. Booker Ngesa Omole, General Secretary of the Communist Party Marxist-Kenya, stood near the barrier and told reporters that France had merely changed 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 offense 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 eroding.
The state responded 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 create space for Africa to function as a global driver rather than a bystander.
The division was evident 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. Organized by CPM-K and the PASAI Working Committee, it brought together anti-imperialist parties, labor 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 gatherings captures the core contradiction 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 creates room to diversify partners beyond China and the United States and to negotiate more aggressively on value addition. For Kenya, it is an opportunity to solidify 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 reduce the burden or intensify it. And there remains the question of inclusion: whether these high-level agreements translate into better services and jobs for the ordinary citizens, 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.