The National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA) has announced a series of stringent measures affecting the sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol across Kenya. As NACADA bans alcohol sale and consumption of beverages in locations such as restaurants, petrol stations, supermarkets, bus parks, and via home deliveries or couriers, industrial backlash is expected.
In addition to the ban on sale of alcohol in highlighted areas, the legal minimum age for purchasing, consuming, and selling alcohol has also been raised from 18 to 21 years. These measures, according to NACADA, are part of a broader attempt to “regulate access, availability, and exposure to alcohol” and reduce the adverse impact alcohol has on youth, families, and public health in Kenya. However, the move is already generating significant debate across the country, with business owners, tax experts, and civil rights advocates warning of far-reaching social and economic repercussions.
NACADA’s Statement
In a public announcement outlining the new measures, NACADA stated: “The unrestricted availability and easy access to alcoholic beverages in public spaces have contributed to the normalisation of alcohol consumption among youth and other vulnerable groups. The authority is thus moving to eliminate access points that encourage underage and irresponsible drinking.”
The authority has cited rising cases of underage drinking, alcohol-related deaths, and a general erosion of public morality as key motivators behind the decision. Kenya’s alcohol consumption per capita is higher than the African average, according to WHO estimates, with unrecorded alcohol accounting for a significant percentage of total intake, often through illicit brews that are both harmful and difficult to regulate.
The revised legal age to 21 is intended to align Kenya with global trends in alcohol control, including in jurisdictions such as the United States where the legal age is 21.
Is The Kenyan Government Aware Of How Much Revenue Comes From The Alcohol Industry?
The NACADA directive comes within a larger context of a government-wide anti-alcohol campaign spearheaded by key leaders, notably President William Ruto and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
President Ruto has in recent months publicly decried the “alcohol menace” that has affected productivity and youth development, especially in central and Rift Valley regions. In one of his previous remarks, Ruto said:
“We are losing an entire generation to cheap alcohol and illicit brews. We must reclaim the future of our young people.”
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and his wife, Pastor Dorcas Gachagua, were particularly vocal during their time in office. They often lead church-based campaigns and stakeholder meetings aimed at eradicating illicit alcohol in counties such as Murang’a, Nyeri, and Kirinyaga. Rigathi’s combative stance included issuing ultimatums to county commissioners and security officials to either shut down illegal alcohol outlets or face dismissal.
This moralistic and interventionist posture aligns with NACADA’s latest announcement, painting a picture of a state apparatus unified in its resolve to reduce alcohol-related harm. However, critics have questioned whether such a top-down approach, especially one that criminalizes rather than rehabilitates, can succeed.
Economic and Legal Backlash Expected
The alcohol industry in Kenya, led by giants like East African Breweries Limited (EABL), is a cornerstone of the country’s economy. EABL alone accounted for approximately KSh 55.7 billion in taxes to the exchequer in the financial year ending 2023, representing over 5% of Kenya Revenue Authority’s (KRA) total collections in the domestic taxes segment.
The broader alcohol and beverage industry, including distributors and retailers, supports over 90,000 formal jobs and countless informal livelihoods. From supermarket attendants to boda boda riders involved in alcohol deliveries, the sector is deeply interwoven with Kenya’s socioeconomic fabric.
By banning alcohol sales in petrol stations, supermarkets, and restaurants, some of the highest traffic points for responsible adult consumers, NACADA risks triggering a wave of closures, layoffs, and legal challenges. Industry stakeholders argue that the move could shrink taxable income and reduce compliance, driving consumers toward unsafe, unregulated brews.
A senior industry insider who requested anonymity remarked:
“This is a regressive step. Banning legal sales in supermarkets and eateries will not stop drinking, it will just push it underground. The government stands to lose billions in tax, and small businesses will bear the brunt.”
Indeed, preliminary estimates suggest that if even 20% of legal alcohol sales are diverted to unregulated channels due to the ban, KRA could lose up to KSh 11 billion annually in excise duty, VAT, and related taxes. This would not only impact public sector revenue but could also strain health systems, as unregulated alcohol often results in poisoning and long-term illness.
What Enforcement Challenges Will NACADA Experience?
While NACADA’s intention may be noble, enforcing such sweeping restrictions raises practical and constitutional questions. For instance, how will the ban on home deliveries be monitored without infringing on privacy rights? Will small eateries and social clubs be forced to close or repurpose their licenses? And who exactly falls under the newly defined age bracket, will employees under 21 be barred from working in liquor distribution?
Lawyers and civil society groups have also raised concerns that NACADA may be overstepping its mandate. While it has regulatory authority, some critics argue that only Parliament can enforce such sweeping changes to alcohol distribution and consumption laws.
Moreover, the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act of 2010 (popularly known as the Mututho Law) already outlines detailed licensing and operating conditions. Any new policy, particularly one that restricts commerce and freedom of movement, would likely require legislative amendment and public participation.
Who Is The Real Enemy As NACADA Bans Alcohol Sale?
Some stakeholders believe that NACADA is targeting the wrong enemy. While formal alcohol may be highly visible, illicit brews still account for 40-60% of alcohol consumed in rural and peri-urban Kenya, especially among low-income groups.
Over the years, methanol-laced chang’aa and unlicensed second-generation spirits have caused hundreds of deaths. Raids have often revealed entire underground networks of manufacture and distribution, many with the complicity of local authorities.
A bar owner in Nyamira County who lost his son to illicit alcohol in 2022 said:
“If the government wants to save lives, they should focus on destroying these underground networks, not supermarkets that follow the law.”
NACADA’s measures, some argue, may therefore punish responsible businesses while doing little to root out the real culprits. Worse, they may further increase demand for cheap, unsafe alternatives.
Raising the legal drinking age to 21 is often hailed as an effective harm reduction strategy. In the U.S., studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a correlation between higher legal drinking ages and reduced instances of drunk driving and binge drinking among youth.
However, for such policies to be effective, they must be accompanied by consistent enforcement, cultural shifts, and alternative youth engagement programs. Kenya’s informal economy and enforcement loopholes could weaken the impact of the age increase unless backed by strong civic education and community involvement.
The Government’s Dilemma
The government’s push to reduce alcohol consumption is not misplaced. Alcohol abuse contributes to domestic violence, mental health disorders, reduced productivity, and high healthcare costs. But balancing morality-driven policy with economic pragmatism remains a challenge.
Kenya’s 2024/2025 budget anticipates collecting over KSh 340 billion in excise duty, with the alcohol sector projected to contribute at least KSh 60–70 billion. Slashing this revenue stream without a viable alternative could complicate the government’s fiscal consolidation agenda and debt servicing obligations.
Moreover, in counties such as Kiambu, Nakuru, and Nairobi, alcohol licensing fees are a critical source of county revenue, supporting healthcare, road maintenance, and bursaries.
A sudden restriction on licenses and consumption, without compensatory budget allocations, could leave these devolved units cash-strapped.
What Happens Next?
As the dust settles, stakeholders are calling for a more consultative approach. Alcohol industry associations, supermarket chains, restaurant owners, and civil society groups are demanding that NACADA suspend implementation and convene an inclusive forum.
Some are already preparing to challenge the move in court on the grounds of overreach and lack of public participation.
Meanwhile, NACADA insists it is acting in public interest and may not reverse the decision unless ordered by a court or the national legislature.
Is This A Necessary Intervention?
The NACADA alcohol sales ban and legal age increase may be grounded in public health logic, but its blunt implementation risks alienating stakeholders, eroding tax revenues, and failing to address the core issues of enforcement and illicit brews.
Kenya stands at a crossroads, either build a nuanced, stakeholder-driven national alcohol policy, or risk widening the gulf between state intentions and grassroots realities.
As the country waits for clarity and possible policy revisions, one thing is clear: the debate over alcohol is far from over, and its implications will be felt for years to come.
ALSO READ: Gilbey’s Gin Partners With Punchline Comedy Club To Host Comedy Nights
