On May 3, 2025, local leaders in Kilifi County made headlines by unanimously rejecting a proposal to host a nuclear power plant.
Their decision wasn’t just a reaction to the idea of nuclear energy—it was a protest against being excluded from the process.
For many residents of Uyombo, the proposed site, this wasn’t just about concrete and radiation. It was about consent, information, and their right to shape their own future.
Most locals say they were never consulted. The only narratives they had heard came from anti-nuclear advocacy groups warning of radiation risks. Meanwhile, the government and its agencies offered little in the way of timely, accessible, or comprehensive information.
Crucial questions—about displacement, environmental impact, and economic disruption—were left unanswered.
Beyond the fear of radiation, there were legitimate concerns about losing homes, land, and livelihoods. Many community members are farmers and fishermen who felt blindsided by a process that appeared opaque and top-down.
Without a clear explanation of how Uyombo was selected, residents felt like casualties of a larger national plan in which they had no voice.
This approach must change.
Kenya should consider a more inclusive and democratic model: a county-led competition to host nuclear reactors. This system—already in practice in countries like Norway—places power in the hands of communities. There, municipalities like Farsund and Lund sign cooperation agreements with nuclear companies to explore feasibility. Early-stage studies follow—evaluating site suitability, environmental impact, and community benefits—before any decision is made.
In Kenya, counties willing to host a plant should submit public bids outlining how they plan to manage safety, protect the environment, and leverage the plant to bring jobs, clinics, schools, and infrastructure to their people.
These proposals should be debated and refined by citizens and county assemblies before being presented to the State. Only the bids that balance Vision 2030 goals with genuine local support would move forward.
This bidding model offers transparency, consent, and accountability. It ensures communities are not just consulted, but are active participants in shaping Kenya’s energy future.
For this to succeed, however, Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) and the Ministry of Energy must rethink how they communicate. Issuing press releases is not enough. We need boots on the ground—outreach teams in every county, public forums, local radio programs, and community information centres operating in indigenous languages.
While NuPEA says it has held forums and published materials in local dialects, Kilifi’s backlash reveals these efforts have fallen short. The cornerstone of any nuclear rollout must be informed consent. Nuclear energy, alongside renewables, offers Kenya a real path toward industrialisation.
-Gichuki is Project Officer with WePlanet Africa
On May 3, 2025, local leaders in Kilifi County made headlines by unanimously rejecting
a proposal to host
a nuclear power plant.
Their decision wasn’t just a reaction to the idea of nuclear energy—it was a protest against being excluded from the process.
For many residents of Uyombo, the proposed site, this wasn’t just about concrete and radiation. It was about consent, information, and their right to shape their own future.
Most locals say they were never consulted. The only narratives they had heard came from anti-nuclear advocacy groups warning of radiation risks. Meanwhile, the government and its agencies offered little in the way of timely, accessible, or comprehensive information.
Crucial questions—about displacement, environmental impact, and economic disruption—were left unanswered.
Beyond the fear of radiation, there were legitimate concerns about losing homes, land, and livelihoods. Many community members are farmers and fishermen who felt blindsided by a process that appeared opaque and top-down.
Without a clear explanation of how Uyombo was selected, residents felt like casualties of a larger national plan in which they had no voice.
This approach must change.
Kenya should consider a more inclusive and democratic model: a county-led competition to host nuclear reactors. This system—already in practice in countries like Norway—places power in the hands of communities. There, municipalities like Farsund and Lund sign cooperation agreements with nuclear companies to explore feasibility. Early-stage studies follow—evaluating site suitability, environmental impact, and community benefits—before any decision is made.
In Kenya, counties willing to host a plant should submit public bids outlining how they plan to manage safety, protect the environment, and leverage the plant to bring jobs, clinics, schools, and infrastructure to their people.
These proposals should be debated and refined by citizens and county assemblies before being presented to the State. Only the bids that balance Vision 2030 goals with genuine local support would move forward.
This bidding model offers transparency, consent, and accountability. It ensures communities are not just consulted, but are active participants in shaping Kenya’s energy future.
For this to succeed, however, Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) and the Ministry of Energy must rethink how they communicate. Issuing press releases is not enough. We need boots on the ground—outreach teams in every county, public forums, local radio programs, and community information centres operating in indigenous languages.
While NuPEA says it has held forums and published materials in local dialects, Kilifi’s backlash reveals these efforts have fallen short. The cornerstone of any nuclear rollout must be informed consent. Nuclear energy, alongside renewables, offers Kenya a real path toward industrialisation.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
-Gichuki is Project Officer with WePlanet Africa
By Peter Gichuki