The spread of Ebola beyond the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with confirmed cases in Kenya and a newly imported case in Nigeria, has renewed concerns about the effectiveness of regional surveillance and the risk of further cross-border transmission. Jean Kaseya, Director-General of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), has warned that the outbreak remains uncontrolled and called for stronger monitoring both at national borders and within public and private health facilities.

In an interview with Radio France Internationale (RFI), Kaseya stressed that the detection of Ebola in Nigeria demonstrated the seriousness of the outbreak and the need for African governments to coordinate their responses more closely. “No country is safe” without effective surveillance, he warned, underscoring the importance of identifying infections early and tracing people who may have been exposed.

The outbreak, caused by the Bundibugyo species of Ebola virus, was declared in the DRC on May 15, 2026. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the virus continues to circulate at high levels in the DRC, where transmission has spread across eight provinces and 66 health zones. As of October 20, the country had recorded 9,704 confirmed cases and 4,687 deaths. Including cases reported in Kenya and Nigeria, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) counted 9,735 confirmed cases and 4,690 deaths across the affected countries as of October 21.

Nigeria case raises questions over the source of infection

Nigeria confirmed its first Ebola case in more than a decade on October 20, when laboratory tests identified Bundibugyo virus disease in a woman who had travelled to Abuja from Uganda. The patient developed symptoms on October 7, four days after arriving in Nigeria, sought medical attention at a private health facility on October 11, and was subsequently isolated for treatment.

The WHO reported that 44 contacts had been identified and were being monitored. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) confirmed that investigations were continuing to establish the likely source of infection and reconstruct the patient’s movements. Reports indicated that her journey included a transit through Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

A central question concerns where the woman contracted the virus. Kaseya told RFI that she had spent approximately two weeks in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, with her husband and had not visited the DRC. According to his account, she travelled from Kampala to Abuja via Addis Ababa and was not experiencing symptoms when she arrived in Nigeria.

Ugandan authorities, however, offered a different account, saying that the woman had travelled to eastern DRC for business and had passed through Uganda. The WHO’s initial information on her travel history identified Uganda, while the precise circumstances of her exposure remained under investigation.

Kaseya said the discrepancy needed to be clarified through cooperation with Ugandan authorities, including a detailed reconstruction of the woman’s movements and identification of the people with whom she had come into contact. The case raises an important epidemiological question: whether the infection was acquired in the DRC, where transmission remains intense, or whether there was an unrecognised chain of transmission elsewhere.

The available evidence does not, by itself, establish that Ebola transmission has resumed in Uganda. The investigation must determine the source of infection before conclusions can be drawn.

An outbreak that remains far from controlled

Kaseya warned that the outbreak had not yet reached a point at which health authorities could consider it under control. He pointed to its continuing geographical expansion within the DRC and the emergence of cases in other countries as evidence of the challenges facing the regional response.

The current outbreak has affected eight provinces of the DRC, with transmission occurring across dozens of health zones. The WHO has also highlighted insecurity, population displacement, restricted humanitarian access and difficulties in detecting cases early as major obstacles to containing the disease.

The outbreak involves the Bundibugyo virus, a species for which there is currently no approved vaccine or specific treatment. This makes early diagnosis, isolation, supportive medical care, contact tracing and infection prevention particularly important.

Ebola spreads through direct contact with the blood or other bodily fluids of infected people who are symptomatic, or with the bodies and contaminated materials of people who have died from the disease. Infected people do not transmit the virus before symptoms appear. The incubation period can extend to 21 days, which is why exposed contacts are monitored for that period.

The delay between the Nigerian patient’s arrival, the onset of symptoms and laboratory confirmation illustrates the difficulty of identifying cases before potentially large numbers of people have been exposed. Health authorities must therefore trace not only household contacts but also healthcare workers, fellow travellers and others who may have had direct exposure.

Uganda declared Ebola-free, but regional vigilance remains essential

Uganda’s situation adds another dimension to the investigation. The country reported 20 confirmed cases and two deaths during its 2026 outbreak. On August 27, the WHO and Africa CDC declared the outbreak over after the required period without new confirmed cases. The last confirmed patient had recovered and been discharged on July 16.

The Nigerian case does not automatically invalidate that declaration. It does, however, underline the importance of continued surveillance even after a country has officially ended an outbreak, particularly when cross-border movement connects areas with different levels of transmission.

Kenya has also faced the consequences of regional mobility. Its first imported case was identified in October in a person who had travelled from the DRC through Uganda. By October 22, nine confirmed cases, including one death, had been reported in Kenya, with the additional cases linked to the initial infection. The ECDC reported that there was no evidence at that stage of wider community transmission in Kenya.

Kaseya praised the response efforts in Kenya and Uganda, noting that contacts associated with the identified cases had been placed under monitoring. He also called for greater coordination among African health ministers, particularly regarding cross-border travel, surveillance and preparedness.

The spread of cases has prompted questions about the safety of major regional events, including the Africa Cup of Nations scheduled for June 2027 in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Kaseya said the tournament was not considered at risk at this stage, while indicating that the issue would be discussed with Confederation of African Football President Patrice Motsepe. Any assessment will depend on how the outbreak develops and whether transmission can be contained.

Funding transparency becomes another challenge

Alongside the epidemiological emergency, Kaseya has raised concerns about transparency in the financing of the response in the DRC.

Speaking in Kinshasa the previous week, he said the authorities lacked information about approximately $700 million of the $962 million reportedly mobilised by international partners for the response. His remarks generated questions about the management of the funds and were interpreted by some as suggesting possible misappropriation.

Kaseya subsequently rejected that interpretation. He stressed that he had not accused anyone of stealing or misusing the money, but had called attention to the government’s lack of information about the resources entering the country.

His position, as reported in the supplied account of the RFI interview, was that national authorities should have full visibility over the resources mobilised in their territory. He called for a partnership based on respect, access to information and transparency, while emphasising that Africa CDC was prepared to work with international partners and African governments alike.

The issue highlights a broader challenge for emergency responses: international assistance must be accompanied by clear reporting, coordination with national authorities and accountability for the resources committed. Transparency is particularly important when a public-health emergency places enormous demands on already stretched health systems.

Surveillance, cooperation and public trust

The latest developments reinforce the need for a coordinated regional response. The WHO has called for sustained preparedness, stronger surveillance across borders and at points of entry, prompt case detection and cooperation between affected countries. It has also advised against restrictions on travel or trade with affected countries.

For Kaseya, the lesson is that screening at airports and border crossings, while important, cannot replace effective surveillance within communities and healthcare facilities. Health workers must be able to recognise suspected cases, access appropriate testing and isolate patients promptly, while contact-tracing teams need the resources to identify and monitor exposed individuals.

The investigation in Nigeria will be crucial in determining where the patient contracted the virus and whether further transmission chains exist. Until those questions are resolved, the case should be treated as a warning about the risks of undetected transmission rather than proof that every country through which the patient travelled has an active outbreak.

The wider challenge remains the containment of transmission in the DRC, where thousands of deaths have already been recorded, alongside preventing imported cases from developing into sustained outbreaks elsewhere. As Kaseya’s warning suggests, no country can rely solely on its geographical distance from an outbreak or on a previous declaration that transmission has ended. Effective surveillance, transparent financing and cross-border cooperation remain central to protecting public health across Africa.

Editorial note: The figures above are dated to the latest official reporting available on October 23, 2026. The precise source of the Nigerian patient’s infection remains under investigation, and the article distinguishes confirmed epidemiological facts from statements attributed to Kaseya and the authorities involved.