Featured News

The national demand stands at between 1.3 and 1.5 million metric tonnes annually, while domestic production supplies less than 20 per cent.

In Summary

• Between January and June, the country will require approximately 750,000 metric tonnes of rice, yet projected domestic production for the same period stands at just 110,000 metric tonnes of paddy rice, a gap that local stocks alone cannot bridge.
• The High Court is expected to deliver its ruling on January 29, 2026, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for food prices, household welfare and Kenya’s food security trajectory.

Kenya is at a food security crossroads as drought, rising rice prices and a legal challenge over imports converge, threatening supply stability and access to affordable staples.

Rice, an increasingly important staple in Kenyan households, has emerged at the centre of the growing concern.

Erratic and below-average rainfall has interfered with planting cycles, reduced yields and triggered early price volatility, raising fears that pressure on rice could spill over into maize and other key staples.

Official data presented before the High Court shows that Kenya’s rice deficit is structural and worsening.

While national demand stands at between 1.3 and 1.5 million metric tonnes annually, domestic production supplies less than 20 per cent of that requirement, leaving the country heavily dependent on imports to bridge the gap.

The pressure is expected to intensify in the first half of 2026.

Between January and June, the country will require approximately 750,000 metric tonnes of rice, yet projected domestic production for the same period stands at just 110,000 metric tonnes of paddy rice, a gap that local stocks alone cannot bridge.

The Ministry of Agriculture’s Contingency Emergency Response Action Plan 2025 paints an even grimmer picture, projecting a rice deficit of 381,225 metric tonnes by the end of January 2026.

These supply shortfalls are unfolding against a backdrop of worsening food insecurity. By November 2025, an estimated 1.8 million people in ASAL counties were already experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity.

Without timely intervention, that figure is projected to rise to 3.5 million, underscoring the human cost of delayed policy action.

Climate forecasts presented to the Court indicate erratic and below-average rainfall across major food-producing regions, disrupting planting calendars and sharply reducing yields.

In irrigated rice schemes such as Mwea, Ahero and Bunyala, reduced water availability has increased production costs and constrained output. In rain-fed areas, delayed or failed rains have wiped out entire planting seasons.

The government has warned that these climate shocks are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of climate variability that continues to undermine food production and price stability.

It is against this backdrop that the Government is facing a legal challenge over its decision to allow controlled, time-bound, duty-free rice imports as a food security intervention.

During submissions before the High Court sitting in Kerugoya, State Counsel Samuel Kaumba, Erick Theuri and other government lawyers cautioned that rice prices could rise sharply if imports needed to plug the widening national deficit are blocked.

The case, HCCHRPET/E009/2025, pits the Government against substituted petitioners Hon. James Kamau Murango and David Munyi Mathenge, who are challenging Gazette Notice No. 10353 of July 28, 2025, which authorised the duty-free importation of rice.

The State told the Court that the lapse of the Gazette Notice had already triggered price volatility in non-basmati long-grain rice, with retail prices fluctuating sharply in the second half of 2025, an early warning of what could follow if imports are halted entirely.

Government lawyers argued that rising rice prices disproportionately affect low-income households, particularly in informal settlements and drought-affected counties, where food consumes the largest share of household income.

“If rice becomes unaffordable, households shift to maize, pushing up maize prices as well,” the State submitted, warning of a cascading inflationary effect across the food system that could undermine national price stability efforts.

The Ministry rejected claims that duty-free imports were designed to benefit a few individuals, maintaining that the policy is anchored in constitutional obligations under Articles 21 and 43, which guarantee the right to food.

Blocking imports, the government warned, would expose millions of Kenyans to higher food prices, reduced access to staple foods and heightened hunger, particularly in ASAL counties already grappling with drought.

Addressing concerns that locally produced rice remains unsold, the Ministry said the mop-up of local rice has been ongoing and conducted lawfully through the Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC).

Since 2020, KNTC has purchased rice from cooperatives in schemes such as Mwea, Ahero, Bunyala, Kuja, Kano and Bura for redistribution to public institutions, including schools, hospitals and prisons.

However, the Government stressed that even full absorption of local stocks cannot bridge the national deficit or stabilise prices countrywide.

“Localised surplus cannot be equated with national food security,” the State submitted, noting that food security must be assessed at a national scale rather than based on conditions in a single production zone.

In a pointed argument, the government cautioned against judicial overreach into executive policy space, stating that food security decisions involve complex climatic, economic and logistical considerations best handled by the Executive.

Citing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, including Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authorityand British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for Health, the State argued that courts should exercise restraint where Government action is evidence-based, lawful and taken in good faith.

While acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners, the government maintained that the interests advanced were narrow when weighed against the broader public interest of ensuring affordable food for millions of Kenyans.

“The Court is being asked to balance competing interests,” the State submitted.

“On one side are commercial concerns; on the other are the livelihoods, dignity and survival of millions of Kenyans.”

The High Court is expected to deliver its ruling on January 29, 2026, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for food prices, household welfare and Kenya’s food security trajectory.

Source : the-star