The protest at the gate of Nzoia Sugar Company in Bungoma this week was a reminder of how deeply unresolved problems in Kenya’s sugar sector continue to affect real lives. Workers demanding payment of long outstanding salary arrears were not acting out of mischief.

They were reacting to years of financial strain that no family should endure. That reality must be acknowledged without hesitation. Yet empathy alone cannot resolve a structural problem. Reform demands accuracy, discipline, and a proper understanding of where responsibility begins and where it ends.

Kenya’s sugar industry has been trapped in decline for decades. State-owned mills such as Nzoia, Chemelil, Sony, and Muhoroni became symbols of inefficiency, weighed down by ageing equipment, inconsistent leadership, and chronic cash flow problems.

Government support became routine rather than exceptional. Bailouts were issued, debts were rolled over, and yet workers continued to go unpaid while farmers waited months for their money. By the early 2020s, the sector had absorbed billions of shillings in public funds with little improvement to show for it. The model had failed workers, farmers, and taxpayers alike.

It is against this backdrop that President William Ruto’s administration decided to lease state-owned sugar factories to private operators. This was not an ideological experiment. It was a pragmatic response to an unsustainable situation.

The objective was to restore production, stabilise incomes, and stop the endless accumulation of losses that the Exchequer could no longer justify. Importantly, the policy preserved public ownership. The factories, land, and assets remain state property. What changed was management, investment, and operational discipline.

The results, though still early, are tangible. Factories that had been dormant have resumed crushing. Cane harvesting schedules are being honoured. Farmers are receiving payments within predictable timeframes.

Workers who transitioned into the new management structures are earning their monthly salaries on time. These outcomes matter. They mark a break from the culture of delay that had become normalised under state management.

The current tension stems from a critical misunderstanding that needs to be addressed firmly and honestly. When the leasing agreements were negotiated, the Government took responsibility for all legacy obligations.

These included salary arrears, pensions, and statutory deductions accumulated when the factories were under state control. Workers’ unions were involved in these negotiations and accepted this arrangement. The private millers were not contracted to absorb historical liabilities. Their mandate was to run the factories going forward and meet current wage obligations from the date of takeover.

This separation was deliberate and necessary. Without it, no credible investor would have stepped forward. The alternative would have been continued factory closures, deeper arrears, and eventual collapse. Blaming private millers for debts incurred long before their entry ignores both the law and economic reality.

It is also important to state, without distortion, that the Government has not walked away from its obligations. Since the leasing process began, the State has been meeting agreed commitments in phases. Funds were released to support initial transition payments, including partial settlement of verified salary arrears and support for statutory deductions.

Additional allocations were programmed through the national budget process, with the understanding that remaining balances would be addressed progressively through supplementary appropriations. What remains outstanding today is not a denial of obligation, but a balance awaiting completion within the budget cycle.

Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe has consistently affirmed that the Government recognises these obligations and has already made payments as agreed, while working with the National Treasury to address what remains.

President William Ruto has similarly framed the reform as one that protects workers while restoring fiscal discipline, noting that inherited liabilities must be handled responsibly without collapsing the very reforms meant to stabilise the sector.

Strikes and protests directed at private operators over historical arrears therefore risk undermining the very progress workers now depend on. These firms are meeting their contractual duties. They are paying current wages. They are investing capital. Disrupting their operations does not unlock past salaries. Instead, it introduces uncertainty, threatens production, and exposes workers to employment risks that could leave them worse off.

The question then becomes where pressure should be applied. The answer lies squarely within government budgeting and parliamentary oversight. The Executive has acknowledged its responsibility and has already acted within the agreed arrangements. What is required now is the completion of the process through Parliament. Supplementary budgets exist to address obligations that arise outside the original financial plan. Salary arrears recognised during the leasing process fall precisely into this category.

Members of Parliament from sugar-producing regions carry a special responsibility. They are closest to the affected communities. They sit in the House that authorises expenditure. They have the political leverage to insist that remaining funds for these arrears are prioritised within the supplementary budget. Silence or misdirection at this stage only prolongs worker suffering.

Union leadership must also recalibrate its strategy. Their role is not merely to mobilise frustration but to translate it into outcomes. Structured engagement with parliamentary committees, sustained lobbying of the National Treasury, and firm follow-up on agreed timelines are far more likely to deliver results than demonstrations against entities with no legal obligation for past debts. Leadership is measured not by volume of protest, but by the effectiveness of the outcome.

Supporting government reform does not mean excusing delay or hardship. It means recognising that the current approach has stopped the bleeding. New arrears are no longer piling up.

Payments have been made, operations have resumed, and what remains is a defined balance to be addressed through existing public finance mechanisms. That alone represents progress after years of stagnation.

President William Ruto’s decision to pursue leasing was a recognition that the old approach had run its course. Persisting with state management would have guaranteed further decline. Leasing created space for recovery, safeguarded farmers, and restored regular pay for current workers. That effort deserves support, not distortion.

Kenya now stands at a crossroads. One path leads back to confrontation, stalled production, and renewed uncertainty. The other leads toward stability, accountability, and gradual renewal of an industry that sustains entire regions. The difference between these paths lies in how responsibility is understood and pursued.

Sugar workers deserve payment for work already done. Farmers deserve reliable markets. Private millers deserve an environment in which contracts are respected. The government deserves recognition for taking responsibility and acting within agreed terms. These interests are aligned, not opposed.