As Kenya edges closer to campaign season, the tea sector which is one of the country’s most critical agricultural industries, is increasingly being drawn into political debate.

The Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) national chairperson Chege Kirundi has warned that this trend could destabilise the sector, particularly by sowing confusion and unrest among smallholder farmers who depend on tea for their livelihoods.

Kirundi’s caution reflects a broader concern within agricultural policy circles: that political messaging, when detached from technical and market realities, can undermine confidence in long-established production and marketing systems.

According to the KTDA Chair, some political leaders are advancing claims about the tea industry that are not grounded in fact, potentially misleading farmers at a time when the sector is already grappling with market uncertainty and regulatory reform.

Speaking in Murang’a on Monday, Kirundi argued that politicians seeking to champion farmers’ interests should focus their efforts within formal legislative channels, particularly Parliament, where the Tea Amendment Bill is still under debate.

His remarks underscore the tension between populist political rhetoric and the slower, consultative process required for effective sector reform.

At the centre of the current debate is the proposed Tea Amendment Bill, which is being promoted as a vehicle for wide-ranging reforms intended to significantly increase farmers’ earnings.

KTDA has already submitted its recommendations and participated in parliamentary hearings, but Kirundi emphasised that the final outcome rests with the National Assembly.

He urged lawmakers to fully incorporate submissions from farmers and industry stakeholders before the bill’s third reading.

However, several provisions in the proposed amendments remain contentious. One is the plan to reduce the number of factory directors from six to three.

Critics within the sector argue that such a move could weaken farmer representation and oversight, particularly given the scale of factory operations and the complexity of managing diverse tea-growing regions.

Redrawing boundaries and onboarding new directors, they warn, could create governance gaps rather than efficiencies.

Another major point of debate is the proposal requiring 40 percent of made tea to be sold through value addition.

While the goal aligns with long-term ambitions to boost export earnings and reduce reliance on bulk sales, KTDA officials caution that market access remains a significant hurdle.

Recent losses of key markets in Sudan, Iran, and Russia—attributed to geopolitical tensions—highlight the vulnerability of Kenya’s tea exports to external shocks.

Although negotiations to recover these markets are ongoing, industry players say scaling up value addition will take time and sustained investment.

Supporters of the bill view it as a transformative framework that could double farmer returns.

Detractors, however, fear it may introduce additional levies that erode earnings instead. This divide illustrates the broader challenge facing policymakers: balancing reform and competitiveness with the need to protect farmers’ incomes in the short term.

Kirundi’s warning against politicising the tea sector therefore speaks to a larger issue.

As elections approach, the risk is not only that tea becomes a campaign tool, but that rushed or poorly understood policy positions could destabilise a sector that supports millions of Kenyans.

For now, the outcome of the Tea Amendment Bill—and the manner in which leaders engage with it—will be a key test of whether politics can coexist constructively with sector governance.