Nairobi, Kenya – October 15, 2025 – A climate organization accused of systematically lying to international donors has been handed sweeping diplomatic immunity by the Kenyan government—and furious citizens are demanding answers as the scandal-plagued Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) fights to defend privileges that shield it from lawsuits, audits, and legal accountability while operating on Kenyan soil.

The explosive controversy has ignited a firestorm across Kenya, with social media erupting in outrage as Kenyans ask one burning question: Why does a foreign NGO caught misleading donors in Europe need protection from African citizens it claims to serve?

DUTCH SCANDALS EXPOSED: LIES, EXAGGERATIONS, AND FUNDING COLLAPSE

Before Kenya rolled out the red carpet, the GCA’s reputation was already in tatters in the Netherlands.

Devastating investigative reports by Dutch public broadcaster NOS Nieuws—based on over 70 interviews and extensive documentation—exposed a pattern of deception that has cost the organization its European support base.

The lies were staggering:

The GCA claimed to have mobilized €25 billion in investments, created 900,000 jobs, and improved the lives of 82.5 million people. Climate finance expert Pieter Pauw of TU Eindhoven called these figures “grossly exaggerated” and unprecedented in their inflation.

But it gets worse.

The organization falsely claimed involvement in 17 World Bank projects worth billions. The World Bank confirmed participation in only five—and categorically denied GCA involvement in others, including a $100 million soil erosion project in Congo that GCA prominently featured on its website as evidence of its impact.

When confronted, World Bank officials twice told NOS investigators the GCA played no role whatsoever.

Former employees described a toxic, high-pressure environment under CEO Patrick Verkooijen where staff were actively encouraged to embellish results to secure funding. “I left because I couldn’t continue with these practices,” one whistleblower told Dutch investigators.

Major donors concurred. Internal reports from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation labeled the GCA “difficult to work with” and prone to claiming credit for projects it never initiated.

Norway temporarily froze funding to demand transparency. Denmark pushed for independent audits after struggling to verify any attributable results.

The verdict was damning: The Dutch government withdrew all support, citing governance concerns. The UK pulled out entirely. The Gates Foundation is reconsidering its backing.

With half its funding evaporating, Verkooijen announced plans to abandon the Netherlands entirely and relocate to Kenya—where he has cultivated an extraordinarily cozy relationship with President William Ruto.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION?

The GCA’s Kenyan connections reek of impropriety. In January 2024, President Ruto personally appointed Verkooijen as Chancellor of the University of Nairobi—one of Kenya’s most prestigious institutions.

Weeks before and after that appointment, the GCA funneled €1.2 million in grants to the same university. When questioned, the GCA dismissed concerns, claiming the funding was “pre-arranged” and complied with their rules.

Whose rules? The organization’s own internal policies—the very governance framework that Dutch donors found so inadequate they withdrew millions in support.

The cozy relationship extends further. Verkooijen brazenly crashed a Dutch royal state banquet in Kenya, delivering an uninvited speech praising Ruto—even as the Kenyan president faced international condemnation for human rights abuses and violent crackdowns on protesters. Dutch officials were reportedly furious at the protocol breach.

Now, Kenya’s Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, and Forestry is set to relocate into the GCA’s new African headquarters in Nairobi—a building constructed on public land at the Kenya School of Government.

Read that again: The regulator will become a tenant of the organization it’s supposed to oversee.

IMMUNITY FROM WHAT? KENYANS DEMAND ANSWERS

On October 11, 2025, Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a public notice granting GCA “host country status” under the Privileges and Immunities Act—the same diplomatic protections enjoyed by foreign embassies.

The privileges are sweeping: Protection from lawsuits. Immunity from premises searches. Exemption from certain taxes. Freedom from the accountability ordinary Kenyans face every day.

Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs Dr. Korir Sing’oei defended the decision as “routine,” noting over 170 organizations have received similar status since 1980. Parliamentary approval was granted on September 30, 2025, he insisted, following “proper legal protocols.”

But Kenyans aren’t buying it.

“How can the regulator be a tenant of the entity it’s supposed to oversee?” demanded activist Lynn Ngugi on X, where her posts have garnered over 2,500 likes and 1,600 reposts. The hashtag #WhyGCAImmunity is trending as citizens dissect every angle of the arrangement.

The irony is particularly galling: GCA’s PR team recently sent Ngugi an email threatening legal action for “reputational harm” from her social media posts. The organization can sue Kenyans—but Kenyans cannot sue back.

User @MissNasike’s viral post questioning GCA’s need for immunity exploded with over 1,100 likes, triggering a flood of responses accusing the organization of serving as a “new world order proxy” and vehicle for foreign interests to capture African policy.

Opposition leader Martha Karua has demanded the full Host Country Agreement be published immediately. “Kenya’s sovereignty isn’t for sale under the banner of climate diplomacy,” she declared.

THE GATES FOUNDATION SHADOW

Comparisons to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—which received similar immunities in Kenya before public outcry forced suspension of the arrangement—have fueled conspiracy theories about elite capture of Kenya’s climate and agricultural policy.

The parallels are uncomfortable. Both organizations operate in climate and agriculture. Both cultivated close relationships with top government officials. Both secured diplomatic-style immunity from African accountability while facing governance questions from Western donors.

“Why does a climate NGO that misleads donors in Europe need immunity in Africa?” Ngugi asked on X, echoing the question on millions of Kenyan minds.

GCA’S FEEBLE DEFENSE CRUMBLES

The GCA insists its work benefits Kenya’s most climate-vulnerable populations and that immunity facilitates operations like those of UN agencies. In a defensive statement, the organization claimed it’s merely joining the ranks of established aid providers operating in Kenya.

But the evidence tells a different story.

This is an organization that:

• Systematically lied to major international donors about its achievements
• Falsely claimed involvement in hundreds of millions of dollars in World Bank projects
• Created a toxic internal culture where staff were pressured to fabricate results
• Lost the confidence of the Netherlands, UK, and multiple other European backers
• Faces questions about €1.2 million in grants to an institution its CEO now leads
• Is now embedded so deeply in Kenya’s government that the environmental regulator will operate from its headquarters

President Ruto praised the GCA partnership as a “win-win” during a July 2025 groundbreaking ceremony, insisting Kenya won’t pay for hosting. But critics point out the cost isn’t measured only in cash—it’s measured in sovereignty, accountability, and the dangerous precedent of shielding scandal-plagued foreign organizations from African justice.

MOUNTING CALLS FOR REVOCATION

A section of parliamentarians and civil society groups are demanding immediate revocation of the immunities. Environmental policy experts, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, acknowledge that immunity can facilitate legitimate international cooperation—but only with full transparency.

“Without transparency, public trust erodes completely,” one analyst warned. “And right now, every single aspect of this arrangement screams opacity.”

The GCA maintains it has made adjustments based on donor feedback and never intended to mislead.

But with its European funding base collapsing amid fraud allegations, its CEO embedded in Kenya’s academic leadership while channeling grants to his own institution, and Kenya’s environmental ministry set to operate as its tenant, the optics couldn’t be worse.

As one X user bluntly put it: “They lied to the Dutch. They lied to the World Bank. They lied to the Gates Foundation. Now they want immunity so they can’t be held accountable when they lie to us.”

Until the GCA and the Kenyan government provide convincing answers to the central question—Why immunity?—the fury of millions of Kenyans shows no signs of abating.

---

EDITOR’S NOTE: This investigation is ongoing. Readers with information about the GCA’s operations in Kenya or its Host Country Agreement are encouraged to contact our investigations desk in confidence.

---

Kenya Insights allows guest blogging, if you want to be published on Kenya’s most authoritative and accurate blog, have an expose, news TIPS, story angles, human interest stories, drop us an email on [email protected] or via Telegram

---