In the year 2000, under the stewardship of the late President Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya became the first country to sign the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the global regulatory framework for the regulation of Living Modified Organisms, (LMOs) also referred to as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – a plant or animal whose DNA has been changed using biotechnology to give it beneficial traits such as pest resistance, drought tolerance, or improved productivity. The Protocol was negotiated under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for eight years before it was adopted and opened for signature at the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi.
The message carried by that monumental event was that Kenya was ready to engage in modern biotechnology and was willing to be governed by the global regulatory framework. In essence, Kenya started getting ready for modern biotechnology more than thirty years ago, following the Rio Declaration of 1992 and subsequent negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the Protocol.
Six years after signing the Protocol, Kenya developed and published the National Biotechnology Development Policy in 2006. This was followed in quick succession by the enactment of the Biosafety Act in 2009 and the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority in 2010. This was a significant milestone in the development of Kenya’s policy, legal, institutional, and regulatory framework for biotechnology and biosafety regulation. In 2012, driven by fears arising from a publication by a group of French scientists that was later retracted, the Kenyan Government imposed a ban on the importation and use of genetically modified foods. The decision by the Cabinet disrupted the country’s biotechnology development and biosafety regulatory framework. Nevertheless, driven by the desire to industrialize through the revamping of the cotton-textile-apparel value chain, the Government later approved the commercial cultivation of Bt. cotton, a genetically modified variety that is resistant to the cotton bollworm.
In October 2022, the Government, responding to a technical advisory by relevant government agencies, lifted the 10 – year ban and instead advised that the approvals would follow a case-by-case basis as provided for under the Biosafety Act of 2009. This decision provided temporary relief to farmers and other stakeholders, who were eagerly awaiting the benefits of modern biotechnology, especially in agriculture.
About two months after the ban was lifted, a petition was filed in the High Court challenging the decision, and orders were issued barring the importation, cultivation, or use of genetically modified crops in Kenya. In effect, the orders returned the country to the position that existed before the ban was lifted. Soon after, several additional petitions were filed, and previously dormant cases were revised, drawing many stakeholders into a series of legal battles.
In 2023 and 2024, the Environment and Land Court and the High Court, respectively, dismissed all the petitions, once again paving the way for the application of the existing frameworks governing biotechnology development and biosafety regulation. However, shortly after the High Court ruling, the petitioners, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, where the case remains active.
This chronology of events paints a picture of a back-and-forth movement in Kenya’s journey towards the adoption and deployment of modern biotechnology. At a roundtable forum on agricultural biotechnology organised by the Cereal Growers Association (CGA) in Nairobi in March 2026, the panelists likened the situation to the jerky movement of a chameleon – constantly hesitating between moving forward and holding back. Participants repeatedly posed the question: What/where exactly is the problem? In other words, is the challenge a policy issue, a political issue, a legal issue, or a safety problem?
It is very easy to point fingers at the courts as the source of the problem, since that is the arena for the ongoing litigation. However, courts do not initiate cases on their own; they merely adjudicate matters brought before them. The courts, therefore, cannot be the problem. Could the issue lie with the biosafety regulatory framework? Again, this seems unlikely. In fact, as Hon. Justice Oscar Angote of the Environment and Land Court observed in his ruling: “The country has a robust biosafety regulatory framework that is adequate to ensure and assure the safety of foods derived from Genetically Modified crops…….”
Without pretending to know the real problem, I opine that the problem is “the people”. In the words of Mary Masumbuko, a character in Mbongeni Ngema’s Sarafina, “the people defeated the Napoleon army”. It is the people who go to court with myriads of litigations, which is their right, possibly driven by a legitimate fear of what they do not know, the fear of the unknown.
The CGA roundtable event aptly captured the need for a nationwide drive in public education and awareness that would bring all stakeholders on board, and especially the farmer as the last-mile user of agricultural biotechnology. It is time we rolled up our sleeves, vacated our ivory towers, and went out of our way to educate our people, because as Scripture puts it, “My people perish for lack of knowledge…….”.
Dr. Roy B. Mugiira is the Senior Manager, Program Development at the AATF.
