Bomet farmers begin exporting tea directly to Iran

Small scale tea farmers in Bomet County will now directly export their produce to Iran without going through the Mombasa Auction which is a requirement in the Tea Act, 2020.

The first batch of 84 tonnes of tea was flagged off on Friday by Iranian Ambassador to Kenya Jafar Barmaki and Bomet Governor Hillary Barchok.

Owners of private tea factories and those managed by the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) have been encouraged to take advantage of the deal.

“We are committed to bringing on board both private players and KTDA to add value to tea and export it to Iran to enable farmers to earn maximum profits from their investment,” said Dr Barchok.

End leadership wrangles

He called on KTDA directors to end leadership wrangles and focus on marketing tea. The agency has 69 factories across the country with 600,000 registered small scale growers.

“We have started small, but we are keen on up-scaling the exports with an eye on countries neighbouring Iran including Russia among others,” said Dr Barchok

Mr Barmaki urged Kenyan farmers to adopt technology and export processed goods.

“We are committed to this process, we have kept our promise and today the trade deal has been realised. This is just the beginning; we have a long way to go,” said Mr Barmaki on Friday.

The envoy said Iranian tourists are keen on visiting Kenyan tourist sites.

“Sometimes when I go home (Iran), people have this feeling that Kenya is a desert country and nothing, not even videos can make them change their view except having them visit the country,” said Mr Barmaki.

This comes after the High Court in Bomet suspended sections of the law barring companies, brokers and farmers from directly exporting tea and limiting them to go through the Mombasa Auction.

On May, 20 this year, Justice Roselyne Korir suspended implementation of sections of the Act following a petition filed by the Bomet County Government through Nairobi-based advocate Hillary Sigey with supporting affidavits by Governor Barchok.

In the petition filed on March, 2, 2021, Bomet County government sought to challenge the constitutionality of the sections of the Tea Act, 2020, in particular section 5 (j),(1), 32, 34,36,48 and 45.

 Bill of Rights

The sections of the Act donates powers to the Tea Board to dictate the terms of remuneration in private contracts, both for brokers and in management agent agreement, which conflicts with the law of contract and the principle of privity of contracts protected under Article 19 (3) being a liberty not included in the Bill of Rights but accepted by virtue of this Article.

The petition also sought a review of section 19, 27, 186 (1), 187(2) (b) for being in contravention of the Constitution.

Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives, Attorney General and the National Assembly were listed as respondents in the case filed by the county government.

But the petition was not opposed by the respondents despite two affidavits of service dated March 9 and 16 showing they were served.

Dr Barchok averred in an affidavit that the Act violates the distribution of functions between the National and County governments specifically as per paragraph 4(c) of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.

In the petition, the county states that implementation of the impugned section to the Act will cause the tea industry large costs implications which in turn will negatively impact on performance of the national

Implementation of the disputed sections of the Act, according to the petition, will destabilise production and export of tea in Kenya.

Cause confusion

The Act mandates the Tea Board of Kenya to regulate, develop and promote the industry in contravention of the Constitution in what will cause confusion, disputes, unpaid fees and court cases, according to the litigant.

The petitioner holds the view that the Attorney General, while repealing the laws governing the sector, violated the constitution by failing to facilitate public participation and involvement of the farmers and stakeholders in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees.

“I am persuaded by the arguments that the applicant has demonstrated an overwhelming public interest in the litigation. It is therefore right and proper that the conservatory order is granted to protect the public interest in the interim,” Justice Korir stated.

The Judge further stated, “A Conservatory Order staying and/or suspending the implementation of sections 5(j) (1),32,34,36,48 and 53 of the Tea Act be and is hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of petition,”

[email protected]