Sugarcane farmers oppose proposed Crops Laws amendment Bill

Farmers in Kisumu and Chemelil say proposed changes could undermine sugar sector reforms and weaken their control of the industry.

Sugarcane farmers in Muhoroni and Chemelil, Kisumu County, have opposed proposed amendments to laws governing the sugar industry, warning that the changes could undermine ongoing reforms and threaten farmers’ interests.

The farmers raised their concerns during public participation meetings organised by the National Assembly Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Livestock to gather views on the Crops Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

The Bill, sponsored by National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, proposes amendments to the Sugar Act, 2024, the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Institute Act and the Tea Act.

Among its key provisions is a proposal to transfer the lending powers of the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO), the Kenya Sugar Board and the Tea Board of Kenya to the proposed Kenya Agribusiness Development Corporation (KADCO).

But farmers and industry representatives questioned the need for the changes, arguing that the existing legal framework should be fully implemented before Parliament considers further amendments.

At the Muhoroni meeting, Kenya Association of Sugarcane and Allied Products chairman Atiang Atiang said the Sugar Act had yet to be fully implemented, with the Kenya Sugar Board still awaiting the election of its members.

“The Sugar Board is yet to be constituted. We are waiting for the elections to elect board members. What is the sense of bringing amendments to an Act that you yourselves enacted and have not seen implemented?” he asked.

Atiang also questioned the proposed corporation’s ability to protect farmers’ interests, comparing it to the former Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC), which he accused of contributing to the decline of the sugar industry and failing to pay farmers for their produce.

Maurice Omondi, a farmer living with a disability who represents the Muhoroni branch of the farmers’ federation, said the proposed changes risked reviving problems associated with previous legislation, including the influence of cartels.

He urged Parliament to allow reforms under the Sugar Act to take effect before introducing further changes.

Gerald Ruto of the Rift Valley Sugarcane Planters Association said transferring lending functions and financing arrangements to KADCO could disrupt support available to farmers.

He said a four per cent levy allocated to support the sector directly benefited farmers and questioned how the proposed changes would safeguard those benefits and retain the technical expertise of existing institutions.

“In the spirit and age of devolution, removing the functions and management of the sector away from the farmers and centralising it in Nairobi is ill-advised,” he said.

Ruto called for the revival of farmers’ societies to work alongside the Kenya Sugar Board in addressing challenges facing the industry.

David Rop, a farmer from Tinderet, also urged the government to prioritise struggling cooperatives, saying they had historically helped improve livelihoods and reduce poverty.

At a separate meeting in Chemelil, farmers reiterated their opposition, warning that the Bill could further weaken the sugar industry if enacted in its proposed form.

Mboya Kagumba, a former Kenya Sugar Board director who represented growers from the Chemelil, Nandi Hills and Soin zones, said the proposed establishment of KADCO raised concerns about previous institutional changes.

He compared the proposal to the introduction of the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA), which he said had brought the sugar sector close to collapse.

Zedekiah Okene, chairman of the Kisumu Sugar Belt Union, questioned why reforms intended to benefit farmers were repeatedly being disrupted.

“When did the rain start beating us?” he asked, arguing that interventions had often interrupted progress in the sector.

Nick Oloo, a lawyer representing Kibos and Chemelil sugar millers, criticised the proposed amendments, saying they lacked sufficient policy justification.

“It is alarming that the Government has perfected the art of shooting and then aiming later,” he said.

“Oloo said the Bill did not adequately reflect the views and aspirations of the public and urged Parliament to take the concerns raised during public participation into account.

He also questioned whether the proposed changes would duplicate existing provisions, pointing to similarities between the Bill, the Sugar Development Fund manual and the current Sugar Act.

“There is no substantive policy necessity and no reason whatsoever to change the lending infrastructure,” he said.

The committee is gathering views from stakeholders in the affected areas as Parliament considers the proposed changes.

The farmers want the government to prioritise implementation of the existing law, strengthen farmer-led institutions and protect the financing arrangements they say are essential to the sector’s recovery.