Opposition to the proposed Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill continues to grow, with business groups across Kenya urging Parliament to suspend deliberations until wider public participation is conducted. Traders argue that the proposed legislation could harm small businesses, threaten jobs, reduce government revenue and encourage illicit tobacco trade.
Members of the Bars, Hotel and Liquor Traders Association of Kenya (BAHLITA), particularly in counties such as Nakuru and Uasin Gishu, have criticised the National Assembly for limiting stakeholder consultations largely to Nairobi. They say this has excluded thousands of traders whose livelihoods stand to be directly affected by the proposed law.
BAHLITA Secretary General Boniface Gachoka said meaningful public participation is a constitutional obligation rather than a procedural exercise, arguing that excluding traders from the legislative process undermines their constitutional rights.
The association has cited Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution, which require Parliament to facilitate meaningful public involvement in law-making. According to BAHLITA officials, consultations should be extended nationwide to ensure businesses from all regions have an opportunity to present their views.
Uasin Gishu BAHLITA Chairman Hollian William Lodenyo expressed concern that the Health Committee’s engagement has primarily involved selected stakeholders in Nairobi, leaving many affected business owners without representation.
One of the most contentious proposals in the Bill is the planned ban on flavoured nicotine and tobacco products. Traders fear the restrictions could unintentionally push consumers towards untaxed and unregulated products sold through illegal networks, strengthening the black market at the expense of legitimate businesses.
Industry representatives argue that regulations which fail to reflect market realities often create opportunities for illicit traders while penalising compliant businesses that meet tax and licensing requirements.
British American Tobacco (BAT) Kenya has also raised concerns over several provisions in the Bill. In submissions to the National Assembly’s Health Committee, the company supported efforts to regulate emerging nicotine products but cautioned against applying identical rules to all tobacco and nicotine products regardless of their level of risk.
BAT maintains that products such as nicotine pouches, heated tobacco devices and electronic nicotine delivery systems should be regulated according to their individual risk profiles rather than under a uniform regulatory framework.
The company further noted that illicit cigarettes already account for nearly 45 per cent of Kenya’s cigarette market, leading to an estimated Sh12 billion in annual tax losses. Uganda remains one of the main sources of counterfeit and illicit cigarettes entering the Kenyan market.
Also Read: CBK Grants Global Investors Direct Access to Domestic Government Bonds
Stakeholders warn that introducing stricter controls without strengthening enforcement could worsen illegal trade, reduce sales of regulated products and erode government tax collections.
The debate comes as governments across the world seek appropriate regulatory approaches for rapidly evolving nicotine products, while tobacco manufacturers continue expanding into smoke-free alternatives.
Kenya’s tobacco industry supports more than 100,000 livelihoods across farming, manufacturing, distribution, retail and related sectors. Industry players caution that abrupt regulatory changes could discourage investment, disrupt the value chain and weaken Kenya’s competitiveness within the region.
Other private sector organisations, including the Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KNCCI), the Retail Trade Association of Kenya (RETRAK) and the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM), have also expressed reservations about sections of the proposed legislation.
The organisations argue that some provisions could result in excessive regulation, increase compliance costs and create overlapping regulatory requirements that would disproportionately affect micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.
Business associations have additionally opposed proposals introducing tobacco-specific plastic restrictions, contending that Kenya’s existing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework already provides adequate mechanisms for waste management and recycling.
The outcome of the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill is expected to influence the future regulation of Kenya’s nicotine industry, balancing public health objectives with the need to curb illicit trade while maintaining a competitive business environment.
