A Storm in the Indian Ocean? Kenya Responds to Museveni's Bold Threats
by ELIUD KIBII
Monday, November 17, 2025
In a move that has raised eyebrows across East Africa, Kenya has responded with measured calm to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s recent threats of war over access to the Indian Ocean. But here’s where it gets controversial: while Museveni claims the ocean “belongs to me,” Kenya’s top diplomats are doubling down on their commitment to regional cooperation and peaceful diplomacy.
During a quarterly media engagement, Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi emphasized that Kenya’s strategic interest lies in facilitating trade and cargo movement to neighboring landlocked states, including Uganda. “Kenya is a responsible member of the international community,” Mudavadi stated. “It is in our best interest to ensure that any landlocked country, including Uganda, can use the port of Mombasa seamlessly.”
Mudavadi, who holds the third-highest rank in Kenya’s executive branch, clarified that Kenya has never denied access to any landlocked nation. “What value would our port hold if it doesn’t generate revenue or foster regional growth?” he rhetorically asked, underscoring the economic logic behind Kenya’s stance.
When pressed about Nairobi’s reaction to Museveni’s fiery rhetoric, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’oei responded diplomatically. “President Museveni understands our rights over our natural resources, just as we respect Uganda’s sovereignty over theirs,” Sing’oei noted, subtly defusing tensions while asserting Kenya’s position.
Museveni’s comments last Sunday sent shockwaves across the region, as he warned of potential future wars over access to the Indian Ocean for economic and defense purposes. However, Nairobi’s foreign policy chiefs have taken a more measured approach, grounding their response in international law and regional cooperation.
And this is the part most people miss: while landlocked states like Uganda do have a right to access the sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), this right does not override the sovereignty of transit states like Kenya. Article 125 of UNCLOS guarantees landlocked states access to and from the sea, but such access must be negotiated through bilateral or regional agreements. Transit states retain full sovereignty and can take measures to protect their interests.
Foreign policy analyst Gordon K’achola explains, “The legal framework primarily protects transit rights and negotiated access—ports, customs, transport corridors. No court has ever compelled a coastal state to cede sovereignty or territory. A prime example is the International Court of Justice’s refusal to force Chile to grant Bolivia sovereign access to the Pacific.”
If Museveni is seeking exclusive control or footholds along the coast, K’achola warns, it could be perceived as territorial encroachment, potentially sparking strong reactions from Kenya or Tanzania. “As Museveni himself noted, this could easily lead to war,” K’achola added. “Diplomacy, not threats, is the key to securing Uganda’s access to the sea.”
Kenya’s response highlights its commitment to legal frameworks and regional stability, even in the face of provocative statements. But the question remains: Can Museveni’s bold claims be resolved through diplomacy, or are they a harbinger of deeper regional tensions?
What do you think? Is Museveni’s stance justified, or is Kenya’s approach the right way forward? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
