The Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture has refuted allegations that the government sold fertiliser donated by Russia instead of distributing it to farmers free of charge. Addressing the matter during a public appearance on April 14, the PS stated that what Russia provided was not ready-to-use fertiliser, but rather components used in the manufacture of the input.
According to the Ministry, these components were handed over to local manufacturers through a tendering process. The selected companies used the raw materials to produce fertiliser locally, after which it was processed and released to the market. The PS emphasized that there was no point at which fully manufactured fertiliser was donated directly to Kenya.
“For anyone to say that we received free fertiliser and sold it, we want to clarify that we did not receive ready-to-use fertiliser. What we received was a component for making fertiliser. Should we receive similar components again, we will follow the same process—invite tenders, select a manufacturer, and produce the fertiliser locally,” the PS stated.
These remarks were made in response to recent claims made by a senior political figure, who accused the government of mismanaging the fertiliser consignment from Russia. He alleged that the donation—purportedly 40,000 metric tonnes—was repackaged and sold to Kenyan farmers at market rates. According to the accuser, certain companies processed the donated input and sold it back to the government, pocketing billions in the process.
The PS, however, dismissed these accusations as misinformation, arguing that the process followed was transparent and consistent with existing government procurement policies. The fertiliser components, he explained, required conversion into usable farm input before any distribution could take place, hence the need for involving local producers.
Despite the government’s clarification, questions remain about what happened to the fertiliser after it was processed. While the Ministry confirmed that over 600,000 bags of the input were released to the market, there was no detailed breakdown of whether the fertiliser was sold at subsidized rates or distributed freely, and what criteria were used for the pricing and allocation.
This development comes in the wake of a wider controversy that has rocked the agriculture sector in recent months. Earlier this year, a fake fertiliser scandal erupted, leading to an outcry from farmers across the country. Many farmers reported receiving substandard or counterfeit input, prompting the government to initiate investigations into the matter.
The scandal placed the then Agriculture Cabinet Secretary under heavy scrutiny, and an impeachment motion was tabled against him in Parliament. Although the motion was eventually defeated, the saga exposed serious gaps in the agricultural supply chain and raised concerns about the effectiveness of government oversight.
While the Ministry continues to defend its handling of the Russian donation, the public outcry and the political pressure underscore the need for greater transparency in the management and distribution of agricultural inputs. Stakeholders are calling for a comprehensive audit of the entire fertiliser procurement and distribution process to rebuild trust with farmers and ensure such controversies do not recur in future.
