Sugarcane farmers in Kisumu County have opposed the proposed Crops Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, warning that it could undermine ongoing reforms, weaken farmers’ influence and revive longstanding challenges in the sugar industry.
During public participation meetings in Muhoroni and Chemelil on Tuesday, farmers urged Parliament to allow the Sugar Act, 2024, to be fully implemented before introducing further amendments.
The Bill, sponsored by National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, seeks to amend the Sugar Act, the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Institute Act and the Tea Act.
Among its proposals is transferring lending powers held by key agricultural agencies to the proposed Kenya Agribusiness Development Corporation (KADCO).
Kenya Association of Sugarcane and Allied Products chairperson Atiang Atiang questioned the need to amend the Sugar Act before the Kenya Sugar Board had been fully constituted.
“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 posed.
Farmers warned that the proposed changes could centralise decision-making, weaken existing institutions and expose the sector to renewed exploitation by cartels.
Gerald Ruto of the Rift Valley Sugarcane Planters Association said transferring financing functions to KADCO could disrupt the benefits farmers receive from the four per cent levy allocated to support the industry.
He also opposed moving sector management away from farmers, calling for the revival of farmers’ societies to work alongside the Kenya Sugar Board.
In Chemelil, former Kenya Sugar Board director Mboya Kagumba cautioned that the proposed corporation could replicate past institutional failures, while Kisumu Sugar Belt Union chairperson Zedekiah Okene questioned why reforms intended to benefit farmers continued to face interference.
Nick Oloo, an advocate representing Kibos and Chemelil sugar millers, also criticised the proposed amendments, arguing that they lacked sufficient policy justification and could overlap with existing provisions under the Sugar Act and the Sugar Development Fund manual.
“There is no substantive policy necessity and no reason whatsoever to change the lending infrastructure,” he said.
The farmers called on Parliament to consider concerns raised during public participation and prioritise the implementation of existing reforms, the revival of struggling cooperatives and the protection of farmers’ interests before making further changes to the sector’s legal framework.
