A mother's hug: The Ebola tragedy behind a family reunion

Four more cases of Bundibugyo Ebola have been recorded, bringing the total number of confirmed infections to seven, including three health workers who treated the index patient in hospital.

The Ministry of Health said all four patients developed fever as their first symptom, were immediately isolated and had samples collected for testing. The samples tested positive at both the National Virology Reference Laboratory and the KEMRI laboratory.

The new cases include a male relative of the deceased index patient and three health workers — two men and one woman aged 29, 35 and 32 — who attended to the first patient while he was in hospital.

The male relative had been in quarantine since October 6, 2026, while the three health workers had also been quarantined following their exposure to the index patient.

The Ministry said all four patients are receiving supportive care from trained health workers. It added that the second and third patients are stable and responding well to treatment.

“The Ministry will continue to provide updates on the progress of all reported cases,” the ministry said.

But as the country battles the epidemic, one family is hit hard.

After seven years away, a son was finally home. There were hugs to exchange, a mother to embrace and the familiar comfort of family after years apart.

But the reunion, according to a family of close to 15 family members in quarantine, three have tested positive, and one died, unfolded under circumstances no one present may have fully understood.

The man was critically ill in hospital. His mother wanted to see him. She was initially denied entry to the ward, the source said, but allegedly forced her way in, hugged and kissed her son, who was too sick to respond.

At the time, the family did not know that the man would become Kenya’s first confirmed imported case of Bundibugyo Ebola virus disease, the source claimed.

“The old lady forced her way into the ward, hugged and kissed her son, who was too sick to respond. The status of the patient was not known then. The hospital had seen that he was too sick and he was with a medical team. The family members went home thereafter until they were traced and quarantined,” the source said.

The lady is sadly the third case of the seven announced by the Ministry of Health.

Days later, the family’s reunion would take on a devastating significance.

The man, who had been living in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for seven years, arrived in Nairobi on October 3 after travelling through Uganda. He was taken to Nairobi Hospital, where he was isolated after arrival. He tested positive for Bundibugyo Ebola on October 5 and died that night.

On October 16, the Ministry of Health announced Kenya’s third confirmed case: a 65-year-old woman who was a close relative of the first two patients. She had been in quarantine since October 6 before developing symptoms and testing positive.

The Ministry identified her as a close relative, but the mother-son relationship and the alleged hospital encounter described by the source require independent confirmation.

For a family already confronting a relative’s critical illness and death, the outbreak has brought another burden: the possibility that an act of love and a final attempt to reach a sick son may have involved exposure to a deadly virus.

The source said family members returned home after the hospital visit and were later traced and placed in quarantine. The account has not been independently verified, and it remains unclear what the family had been told about the patient’s condition, whether Ebola was suspected at the time or what precautions were in place.

Did the family know that Ebola was suspected? Were they informed of the risks before visiting? And how quickly were people who may have been exposed identified and contacted?

Nairobi Hospital and the Ministry of Health should clarify what was known about the patient’s condition when relatives sought access to him, what information was communicated to them and how possible contacts were identified.

The family’s experience is part of a wider investigation into how the index patient travelled from the DRC to Kenya.

The patient had been living in the DRC, where he reportedly fell ill and received treatment at several health facilities. He travelled by road to Kampala, Uganda, before boarding a flight to Nairobi on October 3.

The World Health Organization said it remained unclear whether, and at what point, he was symptomatic during his journey.

That uncertainty has prompted questions about how his recent travel and possible exposure were assessed, and whether the screening systems encountered along the way captured his movements through an Ebola-affected country.

Peterson Wachira, national chairman of the Kenya Union of Clinical Officers and a team leader of Kenyan medical personnel deployed to Liberia during the West African Ebola outbreak, said the route may have complicated the assessment of the patient’s travel history.

“It seems like this person understood the screening process and seemed to have circumvented it. He never tried to escape the DRC to Nairobi directly. He knew the index of suspicion would be higher. He travelled to Kampala in Uganda. And you know that Uganda has already been declared Ebola-free. So the index of suspicion has gone lower because they do not have Ebola there,” Wachira said.

Wachira suggested that screeners might have focused on Uganda as the traveller’s immediate point of departure without knowing that he had recently been in the DRC.

“If you look at it when you are screening there at the airport, the public health officers, the clinicians, do not handle the passports. They will not know that this person has been in the DRC. They will know this person has been in Uganda and therefore they may not be able to suspect that. I would not fault health workers who were there,” he said.

His suggestion that the patient deliberately circumvented screening has not been established by authorities. WHO’s account documents the route but does not establish the patient’s intentions or whether he was symptomatic at each stage.

The second and third confirmed cases were close relatives of the index patient who were already in quarantine when they developed symptoms.

The third patient, a 65-year-old woman, developed a fever, sore throat and malaise before testing positive, according to the Ministry’s October 16 update.

Their detection shows why people who have been exposed to Ebola must be monitored even when they initially appear well. Symptoms can develop within 21 days of exposure, and monitoring is based on the last relevant exposure.

The strain involved, Bundibugyo, presents an additional challenge. Unlike the Zaire strain, for which vaccines and treatments are available, there is currently no approved vaccine or specific treatment for Bundibugyo Ebola virus disease.

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has emphasised the importance of early supportive care and public health measures to prevent further transmission.

For the family, however, the crisis is not simply a matter of contact lists, isolation facilities and surveillance figures. It is also about what happened in a hospital ward when a mother tried to reach her sick son.

Her alleged embrace cannot establish when or how the subsequent infection occurred. That requires epidemiological investigation. But the account raises an essential question for the response: how can health authorities protect families while ensuring they understand the risks surrounding a suspected Ebola patient?

The family’s account, alongside responses from Nairobi Hospital and the Ministry of Health, is needed to establish what happened and what the relatives were told.

In an outbreak, families should not have to guess whether a visit to a loved one could expose them to a dangerous infection. They need clear information, timely guidance and protection, especially when a patient is too ill to explain what is happening.