The High Court has refused to strike out a lawsuit contesting the government’s authorization of duty-free rice imports into Kenya.

Justice Edward Muriithi ruled that the case, brought by Kirinyaga Senator Kamau Murango, raises significant constitutional questions about the balance between ensuring national food security and protecting the rights of local rice farmers.

Key Issues in the Case

  • The government issued a gazette notice allowing importers to bring in 500,000 metric tons of duty-free milled white rice to address supply deficits.
  • Local farmers argue that Kenya produces sufficient rice and that the imports would flood the market, causing price drops that threaten their livelihoods.
  • The government contends the imports are necessary to close a supply gap and stabilize prices amid rising living costs.
  • Justice Muriithi noted potential conflicts under Article 165(4) of the Constitution regarding the validity of the Treasury Cabinet Secretary’s authority and its impact on farmers’ property rights.

Background and Developments

Kenya’s rice production stands at approximately 244,000 metric tons annually, while demand exceeds 1 million metric tons, creating an import market valued at about Sh55 billion. The duty-free import policy aims to bridge this gap, with most imports coming from India, Pakistan, and Tanzania.

Since the policy's announcement in July 2025, multiple legal challenges have emerged, with courts issuing conflicting orders on rice clearance. Some judges have temporarily halted imports, citing concerns raised by various petitioners.

The government has maintained that the imports are critical for food security, particularly in arid regions such as Turkana and Marsabit, and have positioned the Kenya National Trading Corporation as a key player in price stabilization efforts.

Ongoing Legal Battles

  • At least six cases related to duty-free rice imports are currently active in different courts.
  • Some parties, including the Farmers Party, have withdrawn their suits, while others, like Senator Murango and MCA David Mathenge, continue to pursue legal action.
  • The Attorney General and other government agencies have raised concerns about multiple overlapping cases, suggesting possible abuse of court processes.

The High Court’s decision to allow the case to proceed underscores the complex interplay between government policy, constitutional rights, and the interests of Kenya’s agricultural sector.