Court suspends importation of GMO food

The state suffered a major setback on Monday after the High Court suspended importation and distribution of genetically modified crops pending hearing of a case filed by farmers.

Justice Mugure Thande suspended the directive by the government on October 3, which lifted the ban on GMO.

This comes as Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi distanced himself from his Trade counterpart Moses Kuria over the recent announcement on maize importation. 

In the case, Kenyan Peasant League had moved to court challenging the decision by government to allow importation of GMO foods.

Justice Thande directed the organisation to serve their application to the respondents by close of business on Monday.

The case will be mentioned on December 15 for further directions.

Through lawyer Kevin Oriri, the farmers told court that there was an imminent danger and real possibility of the state gazetting formally the authorisation of importation of GMO into the country.

They said that they are apprehensive that the GMOs, if permitted into the country, will gravely affect their farming and crop production as peasants thereby affecting their productivity and sustainability.

Oriri said on November 18, Trade Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria had said that he was going to issue a Gazette notice to allow for the importation of maize, whether GMOs or otherwise.

“Applicant decries the manner in which such a major declaration on the importation and cultivation of GMO maize was never subjected to public participation, neither are the contents of reports, if any, that preceded the making of the said decision been subjected to public participation of stakeholders,” reads court papers.

The farmers also told court that they were very alarmed by the statement made by Kuria where he allegedly acknowledged the risk that GMOs pose to the right to life.

They also said the state has breached the provisions of Article 10 on public participation by not giving the farmers and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment and raise their concerns on this issue.

“Further the applicant holds the view that the respondents failed to accord the applicant the right to fair administrative action by declining to share the evidence, if any, relied upon in arriving at its decision or even according to the applicant a right to hearing or presentation thereon,” reads court papers.

 

(edited by Amol Awuor)