Critical Analysis of the Proposed Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) Takeover by the Adani Group

The potential takeover of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) by the Indian conglomerate Adani Group has sparked significant debate in Kenya. As the country’s main international gateway and a vital component of its economy, any changes to the management of JKIA carry immense implications for national sovereignty, economic growth, and the livelihood of Kenyans. However, a critical analysis of the proposed deal, especially in light of Adani’s track record in other countries, raises serious concerns about whether this takeover is truly in Kenya’s best interest.

Context of the Takeover and Adani Group’s Global Footprint

The Adani Group has rapidly expanded its portfolio, particularly in infrastructure and airport management. It now operates several major airports in India, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur, and has shown interest in international ventures. In Kenya, the group’s anticipated entry into the management of JKIA would be part of a public-private partnership (PPP) aimed at improving airport infrastructure and operations.

However, Adani’s global expansions have been marred by significant controversies, raising doubts about whether a similar arrangement at JKIA would benefit Kenya.

A Look at Adani’s Controversial Airport Takeovers

1. India’s Airports: A Mixed Record
   • In India, the Adani Group’s takeover of several airports, including the high-profile Mumbai International Airport, has faced backlash. Critics argue that the group’s monopolistic control over major airports has led to higher passenger fees and commercial focus over public service. Additionally, the deal to acquire these airports raised transparency concerns, with allegations that favorable terms were extended to Adani, bypassing normal competitive procedures.
   • In 2021, a report by India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) questioned the fairness of the bidding process that allowed Adani to control six airports, including Mumbai. These concerns about transparency and competitiveness are likely to resonate in Kenya, where questions have already been raised about the details of the proposed deal at JKIA.
2. Australia’s Carmichael Coal Mine and Environmental Violations
   • The Adani Group’s reputation has also been tarnished by its controversial Carmichael coal mine in Australia. The project, which faced stiff opposition from environmentalists and Indigenous groups, has been criticized for its harmful environmental impact, including the threat it poses to the Great Barrier Reef.
   • Although this issue is unrelated to airport management, the controversies surrounding Adani’s environmental and ethical record underscore broader concerns about its business practices. Kenyan civil society groups have already expressed apprehension about the potential environmental and governance implications of bringing such a conglomerate into JKIA’s management.
3. Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port: A Cautionary Tale
   • While the Adani Group was not directly involved in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, the situation offers a cautionary parallel. In 2017, Sri Lanka handed over the port to a Chinese state-owned enterprise on a 99-year lease after it became unable to service the debt accrued from its construction. The port deal has been widely criticized as a symbol of “debt-trap diplomacy,” where critical national infrastructure ends up under foreign control.
   • Kenya faces a similar risk with the JKIA takeover. Critics argue that by outsourcing the management of a strategic asset to a foreign conglomerate, the country risks surrendering control over a key piece of its economic infrastructure. While the specifics of the JKIA-Adani deal may differ from Sri Lanka’s port situation, the principle remains the same: losing control over strategic national assets can have long-term negative consequences.

Critical Concerns Surrounding the JKIA Takeover

1. Loss of National Sovereignty
   • JKIA is not just a commercial enterprise; it is a critical asset for Kenya’s national security and economic sovereignty. Handing over control to a foreign company raises significant concerns about who holds ultimate authority over decisions that could affect national security, such as the management of air traffic or the airport’s role in military or emergency operations.
   • The Adani Group’s involvement in key strategic sectors, particularly in India, has shown how large corporations can exert disproportionate influence over public policy. In the case of JKIA, there is legitimate fear that such influence could compromise Kenya’s national interests in favor of private profits.
2. Job Losses and Poor Working Conditions
   • One of the key arguments against the takeover is the potential impact on the local workforce. The experience in other countries where Adani has taken over infrastructure projects suggests that cost-cutting measures and restructuring often follow, leading to job losses or a reduction in workers’ rights. For instance, in the Indian airports now managed by Adani, labor unions have voiced concerns over deteriorating working conditions and the prioritization of profits over employee welfare.
   • Kenyan airport workers, represented by unions, have already voiced similar concerns. There are fears that Adani’s management would result in layoffs or the casualization of jobs, pushing more employees into less secure and lower-paying positions. This would not only harm workers but also impact the quality of service provided at the airport.
3. Transparency and Accountability
   • The transparency of the proposed deal between the Kenyan government and the Adani Group remains a major issue. Given the controversies surrounding Adani’s acquisitions in India and elsewhere, there is skepticism about whether the process for selecting Adani was truly competitive and in the best interest of Kenya.
   • In India, the bidding process for airports was heavily criticized for being skewed in Adani’s favor, which has raised red flags among Kenyans who worry that the same could happen in Nairobi. Without clear disclosure of the terms of the deal, including how revenue will be shared and how decisions will be made, there is little to reassure the public that Kenya will reap the benefits of this partnership.
4. Impact on Kenya Airways and Local Business
   • The introduction of a powerful private operator like Adani could also have negative repercussions for local businesses, including Kenya Airways. The national carrier has struggled with financial difficulties, and any increase in airport fees or operational costs could further strain its ability to compete.
   • Moreover, the shift toward a commercial focus at JKIA under Adani’s management could prioritize the needs of international airlines and multinational corporations over those of local businesses, potentially marginalizing Kenyan enterprises that depend on airport services.
5. Environmental and Social Responsibility
   • The Adani Group’s environmental track record, as seen in its Australian coal mining project, is cause for concern. While the JKIA takeover is not directly related to environmental exploitation, the group’s broader ethical and social responsibility practices have come under fire in other countries.
   • Kenya must consider the long-term environmental and social impacts of allowing a conglomerate with such a controversial background to manage one of its largest public assets. The question remains whether the government has put in place stringent enough regulations to hold Adani accountable for any mismanagement or unethical practices.

Conclusion: Proceed with Caution

The potential takeover of JKIA by the Adani Group is fraught with risks that go beyond the simple modernization of the airport. While proponents argue that the private sector can bring much-needed efficiency and investment, the experiences of other countries suggest that the benefits may come at a high cost. Kenya must carefully weigh the implications of allowing a foreign conglomerate to control such a vital national asset.

Given the Adani Group’s controversial track record in India, Australia, and elsewhere, Kenya should proceed with caution. Ensuring transparency, safeguarding local jobs, and maintaining national sovereignty must be at the forefront of any negotiations. Without these protections, Kenya risks repeating the mistakes seen in other countries where critical infrastructure has fallen into foreign hands, with long-lasting consequences.