Kenya and Finland strengthen their partnership with 3 Memoranda of Understanding
New agreements to support innovation and combat climate change
Written by Ziad Abdel Fattah:
Kenya and Finland have taken a new step towards strengthening their bilateral relations by signing three memoranda of understanding aimed at enhancing cooperation in a number of vital areas, including Circular economy The bioeconomy, climate change, and education, along with digital transformation and innovation.
The agreements focus on supporting scientific cooperation.
The signed agreements focus on supporting scientific cooperation between the two countries, developing knowledge exchange mechanisms, and encouraging innovation-based partnerships, which contribute to achieving sustainable development goals and driving shared prosperity.
Commitment to reforming the multilateral institutional system
Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to reforming the multilateral institutions system, ensuring that it is more representative, effective, and responsive to the aspirations of the Global South.
Both parties affirmed their commitment to the principles of world peace, respect for the Charter of the United Nations, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, while stressing the need to resolve disputes peacefully in accordance with the rules of international law.
In another development, Kenya’s Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s decision to remove former Vice President Regathi Gatchagwa, rejecting a series of consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of his removal.
The ruling was issued on Monday, June 8, 2026, by a panel of judges including Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrema, and Judge Farida Mugambi, in which the court concluded that Parliament and the Senate acted within the constitutional and legal framework during the impeachment proceedings.
The court confirmed that the impeachment process met the constitutional requirements, including the requirement of public participation in the legislative process.
It also rejected claims that Parliament lacked the legal authority to consider impeachment proceedings due to the non-full application of the two-thirds gender representation principle.
The court held that the issue of gender representation does not affect the constitutional mandate granted to Parliament to consider impeachment cases and make decisions related to them, stressing that the internal regulations on which the impeachment procedures were based were sound and in accordance with the constitution.
