Western firms often cannot match the cost or speed of the Chinese contractors, who already have extensive teams and machinery on the ground from building the country’s major railways and highways.

Observers said this pragmatic approach highlighted how hybrid arrangements could still emerge in Africa even as geopolitical and economic rivalries intensified.

A British High Commission spokesperson in Nairobi said Nairobi Railway City was a flagship project for the Kenya-UK Strategic Partnership, which aimed to provide cheaper, quicker public transport for Nairobi residents to reduce congestion and air pollution while creating jobs.

“The UK’s role involves technical advice and exploring finance options, including potential support from UK Export Finance,” the spokesperson said.

Although a Chinese company was expected to carry out the construction, the spokesperson explained that where UKEF funding was involved, at least 20 per cent of the tender value must be awarded to British firms. As a result, when construction starts, Chinese firms would be required to subcontract or allow British firms to supply some materials.

The tender award for the British-backed deal has also triggered a fierce legal battle among three Chinese state-owned giants.

In December, the Kenyan government awarded the US$230 million contract to China Road and Bridge Corporation to build the railway station.

However, the decision was challenged by other Chinese state-owned bidders, including China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation – which put in a lower bid and argued the evaluation was flawed – and the CRCEG-COVEC Consortium—a joint venture between China Overseas Engineering Group and China Railway Group.

This crossover comes as “de-risking” policies in Washington and Brussels have left investors wary of projects involving Chinese contractors or shareholders.

Last year, for example, the Portuguese firm Mota-Engil pulled out of the Nairobi–Mombasa expressway project after American financiers raised concerns over its ownership.

The Chinese state-owned giant China Communications Construction Company holds a 32.4 per cent stake in Mota-Engil, a connection that reportedly blocked US-backed funding.

EU officials also worry that Western-funded upgrades might effectively subsidise a mineral supply chain dominated by Chinese miners.

Hong Zhang, an assistant professor at Indiana University Bloomington, said Chinese companies had operated in Africa primarily as engineering, procurement, construction contractors. Their advantage over Western firms was usually that they cost less due to the lower wage levels for their employees, as well as a more rudimentary corporate structure that often failed to properly account for management costs.

“Even though Chinese companies appear to be very dominant in Africa, they have mainly occupied the lower value-added segments of the infrastructure sector – the construction,” Zhang said. By contrast, she said, many Western firms had moved to higher-value-added segments such as design and consultancy, and were not in direct competition with Chinese firms.

02:09

She said that for Western governments, when it came to construction, they now faced a dilemma: “Do they exclude Chinese firms – which may be much cheaper than Western firms – or do they hire more costly Western firms?”

On that trade-off, Zhang said different Western governments might choose differently. “It wouldn’t be too surprising to see the US government choose to exclude Chinese firms at all costs, while other governments like the UK might be more pragmatic,” Zhang said.

Professor Jing Gu, director of the Centre for Rising Powers and Global Development at the Institute of Development Studies, said the Nairobi Railway City project reflected selective “managed engagement” rather than a return to a “golden era”. She described the project as part of a global shift where emerging economies avoided choosing sides.

“They are trying to keep options open, combining relationships, hedging risks, and preserving room for manoeuvre in a more fragmented global economy,” she said.

Gu said that where Chinese firms provided scale and Western actors retained influence through finance and design, “hybrid arrangements can still emerge”.

She also pointed to other cases across Africa where Western and Chinese supply chains intersected, often less visibly than in Nairobi.

“The reality on the ground is usually more entangled than official de-risking language suggests,” Gu said.

While this model might persist in transport, she warned it was no universal blueprint. “In more strategically sensitive areas, including advanced technology and data, pressure to exclude Chinese firms is likely to remain much stronger,” she added.