Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Prime
Trader sues State over duty-free rice imports order in favour of KNTC
The petitioner argues that the directive does not enhance food security; instead, it destabilises the local rice market, discourages production, and risks long-term food insecurity by not issuing incentives to local farming.
A trader in locally produced rice has sued the State over a gazette notice authorising the importation of 500,000 tonnes of the staple food duty-free, between July 28 and December 31.
Frankline Ojiambo says the directive to authorise duty-free importation of the rice was made without public participation and that the only entity consulted was the Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC), which is also the designated importer.
In his petition at the High Court in Mombasa, Mr Ojiambo claims that no consultation was held with rice farmers, traders, consumer groups or other stakeholders.
“No parliamentary deliberations were conducted, the process was opaque and exclusionary,” argues the petitioner.
Apart from KNTC, Mr Ojiambo has sued Treasury and Agriculture Cabinet Secretaries, the Agriculture Food Authority, the Commissioner for Customs and Border Control, the Attorney General and the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA).
Mr Ojiambo wants a declaration that the gazette notice dated July 28 is unconstitutional and also wants an order issued to have it quashed.
The petitioner also wants an order issued restraining KPA from clearing, facilitating or processing the entry, handling or release of any consignment of rice imported pursuant to the gazette notice, pending hearing and determination of the petition.
Mr Ojiambo argues that the directive discriminates against local rice farmers and traders by favouring a single State-appointed importer, creating an uneven playing field, undermining fair competition and economic equity.
“The decision to grant duty-free status exclusively to the sixth respondent (KNTC) without extending similar treatment to other importers or producers constitutes unjustified economic discrimination,” argues Mr Ojiambo in his petition.
The petitioner argues that the directive does not enhance food security; instead, it destabilises the local rice market, discourages production, and risks long-term food insecurity by not issuing incentives to local farming.
He also argues that the duty waiver granted through the gazette notice was not supported by any enabling legislation, was issued unilaterally, and without fiscal oversight.
The petitioner also claims that the selection of KNTC as the sole importer was done without competitive bidding, stakeholder engagement, or transparency.
Mr Ojiambo claims that the purpose of the gazette notice is to control the price of Grade 1 rice in the local market and not to respond to any emergency.
According to Mr Ojiambo, if the respondents intended to regulate rice prices, the appropriate legal framework would have been the Price Control (essential commodities) Act, which empowers a Cabinet Secretary to declare goods as essential commodities and set maximum prices through a gazette notice.
“The blanket application for the gazette notice across the country is unjustified; local production and duties imports have not faced any impediments to availability in most towns. The alleged price shocks are not uniform or substantiated,” the petition states in part.
The petitioner claims that the implementation of the gazette notice has already begun to distort the rice market, with local farmers reporting price drops, reduced demand, and uncertainty over future planting seasons.
He also claims that the directive has created a surplus in the market, undermining the value of locally produced rice and rendering recent harvests economically unviable.
Mr Ojiambo is also seeking an order to compel the respondents to undertake proper stakeholder consultation and public participation before issuing any future directives affecting the agricultural sector.
The petitioner also wants an order issued restraining the respondents from implementing or acting upon the gazette notice or issuing any similar directive without compliance with the Constitution and applicable laws.
