“That pending the hearing of this petition, the respondents do file a further status report upon the expiry or earlier exhaustion of the quota confirming the aggregate quantity imported and cleared pursuant to gazette notice No.10061,” said the court.

The High Court also directed the government to continue receiving, processing and completing applications, approvals, exemption codes, customs entries and other documentation necessary for the importation and clearance of consignments falling within the unused portion of the quota.

The orders followed a petition by the Ahero Rice Farmers Association, who sued, demanding accountability in the importation of the 490,000-tonne limit set out in the notice published on July 6, 2026.

The farmers said although they did not oppose the government’s decision to import rice to enhance food security, the programme should be implemented transparently, accountably and within the quota.

The association argues that the Gazette Notice was issued without meaningful public participation or consultation with local rice farmers, farmers’ associations, millers and county governments, contrary to Articles 10, 201(a) and 232 of the Constitution.

“The matter raises issues affecting food security, public revenue, the rice market and the livelihoods and economic interests of rice farmers represented by the 1st Petitioner,” the petition stated.

The association sued National Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi, Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe, the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA).

Following the petition, the government complied with the directive of the court by disclosing a list of approved, licensed and prequalified importers, the quantities allocated to each importer and the quantities already imported and cleared into the country.

The farmers want KRA compelled to establish and maintain a publicly accessible register showing every consignment cleared under the notice, the importer involved, the quantity cleared, and the running balance against the authorised quota.

A separate petition has been filed in Nairobi by Soufianne Bakkal, who argues that the government has failed to disclose the information, criteria, reports, economic assessments, market analyses, food security studies, stakeholder consultations and recommendations that informed the decision to allow the duty-free imports.

“The absence of the disclosure has denied the public an opportunity to assess whether the decision was rational, evidence-based, equitable, lawful, and consistent with constitutional principles,” Mr Bakkal said.

He argues that the lack of a transparent and equitable framework for allocating duty-free import quotas violates the principles of good governance and fair administrative action.

The Ahero Rice Farmers Association says it represents more than 1,500 rice farmers from Ahero, West Kano, Bunyala, Mwea, Tana Delta, Bura, Hola, Garsen, Taita Taveta and other rice-growing regions.

The association says its mandate is to protect the interests of local rice producers, promote sustainable agricultural policies and advance the welfare of the rice value chain.

According to the petition, although the Gazette Notice serves the legitimate objective of promoting food security and protecting consumers from high food prices, the programme must have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.

The farmers argue that duty-free imports should only be allowed where there is a genuine domestic rice deficit.

They warn that allowing large-scale imports during periods of local surplus could flood the market with cheaper rice, depress farm-gate prices and cause significant losses to local producers who have invested heavily in land preparation, irrigation, seed, fertiliser, labour, harvesting and milling.

The petition also argues that the duty waiver will result in a substantial loss of public revenue while conferring significant commercial benefits on private importers.

The association therefore contends that the programme must be administered openly, fairly and accountably.

The farmers accuse the government of failing to publicly disclose the market analyses, food security studies, economic assessments, stakeholder consultations and other reports that informed the decision.

They argued that the failure to disclose the information prevents the public from assessing whether the decision was rational, evidence-based and consistent with constitutional principles.