Tobacco use kills 6,000 Kenyans every year. The Ministry of Health and the board are tasked with preventing these deaths.
As Kenya commemorated the World No Tobacco Day on
May 31 last week,
attention turned to the
progress made over the 18 years since the Tobacco Control Act came into force.
Of concern is the performance and
effectiveness of the Kenya Tobacco Control Board, the organ
created to safeguard the law.
The Kenya Tobacco Control Board, established under the
Tobacco Control Act of 2007, was created
to serve as a central advisory body guiding the government on tobacco
regulation and public health protection.
Its primary responsibility is to advise the
Cabinet Secretary for Health on matters concerning the production, manufacture,
sale, advertising, promotion, sponsorship, and consumption of tobacco products.
Yet, nearly two decades later,
its effectiveness remains under scrutiny amid persistent structural challenges
and allegations of interference from powerful tobacco industry actors.
The board comprises
representatives from key sectors including the Ministry of Agriculture, civil
society organisations,
and professional health organisations.
The law strictly prohibits
individuals affiliated with the tobacco industry from holding positions on the
board an effort to safeguard policymaking from vested commercial interests.
Despite these safeguards,
evidence indicates that the tobacco industry has played an outsized role in
influencing tobacco control policy in Kenya.
Before the enactment of the
Tobacco Control Act in 2007, major tobacco companies British American Tobacco
Kenya and Mastermind Tobacco Kenya were reported to have actively lobbied
against the proposed legislation.
These efforts included organising exclusive retreats for Members of
Parliament, aimed at influencing their stance on the bill. In the years
following the Act’s passage, the industry has continued to resist regulation
through strategic litigation.
A notable example is the 2014
Tobacco Control Regulations, which faced extended legal challenges that delayed
its enforcement for over five years. This prolonged litigation significantly
stalled the implementation of key provisions of the Act, including the introduction of
graphic health warnings, the operationalisation of the Tobacco Control Fund, and the enforcement of
standardised packaging
and labeling requirements.
In recent times, growing concern
has been expressed over the diminishing effectiveness of the Kenya Tobacco
Control Board, which many now regard as the weakest link in the country’s
tobacco control architecture.
The board has been unable
to take decisive action against industry interference.
Originally established as a
professional and independent advisory body, the board appears to have
increasingly been bogged by tobacco industry inretference and succumbed to
political interference, significantly undermining its mandate. Over the past three
years, the board has experienced frequent leadership changes, including
multiple appointments to the chairperson position, raising serious questions
about its stability and susceptibility to political influence.
Additionally, there are credible
reports suggesting that appointment positions on the board have been used as
political rewards, with some appointees within the board allegedly promoting
the interests of the tobacco industry from within contrary to the spirit and
letter of the Tobacco Control Act.
As a result, the board has been
reduced to what some observers describe as a “toothless dog that cannot bite,”
unable to take decisive action against industry interference or uphold its
public health responsibilities.
In one recent instance during the
nation wide public participation process for a new round of graphic health
warnings on tobacco and nicotine products, observers from civil society organisations reported that a
number of tobacco control board representative demonstrated clear bias in favour of tobacco industry
stakeholders, prompting concern among civil society groups.
Additionally, some board members
have openly supported the concept of harm reduction a strategy often promoted
by tobacco companies to push emerging products such as e-cigarettes and
nicotine pouches. This has led to allegations that these individuals are acting
more as industry lobbyists within the board than as public health advocates.
Furthermore, during public
engagement events held across various regions, the tobacco industry was
reportedly involved in disrupting proceedings by mobilising and hiring goons to shout down
delegates who supported the proposed introduction of a new round of graphic
health warnings on tobacco products. In addition to these tactics, the industry
is believed to have spent significant sums possibly running into billions of
shillings on lobbying, advertising, and promotional campaigns during the same
period.
Media coverage of these events
was widely perceived by observers to be skewed in favour of the industry,
raising legitimate concerns about the influence of corporate advertising expenditure
on media neutrality and editorial independence.
In light of these developments,
many expected the Kenya Tobacco Control Board to take firm and decisive action
against such interference. However, the board appeared helpless either
unwilling or unable to respond, and no measures were taken to hold the tobacco
industry accountable for its actions. This perceived inaction has further
fuelled concerns about the board’s independence and effectiveness in fulfilling
its mandate to protect public health.
Beyond external pressures,
internal weaknesses have also stifled the board’s effectiveness. The board’s
advisory mandate has occasionally clashed with the roles of the Ministry of
Health Division Of Drugs And Substance Abuse with some ministry officials accusing
the Tobacco Control Board of overstepping
its boundaries into policy execution.
These role ambiguities have
created unending friction and delayed the rollout of key interventions. In
addition, the board has faced significant resource constraints. Inadequate
funding, lack of a dedicated budget line within the Ministry of Health, and
limited administrative capacity including even basic operational infrastructure
have severely undermined its ability to fulfill its duties.
Experts and public health advocates
argue that strengthening the Tobaco Control Act is crucial for Kenya to meet
its national and international tobacco control obligations. There is a pressing
need to clearly define the board’s advisory role to avoid overlapping
responsibilities and improve coordination within the Ministry of Health.
Sustainable financial support is
essential for operational functionality, research, and capacity building.
Robust monitoring systems should be established to prevent industry
interference, in line with the World Health Organization Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Additionally, greater transparency in board
appointments, decision-making processes, and stakeholder engagement can help
build public trust and ensure the board’s work remains aligned with national
health priorities.
The writer (pictured) is the national coordinator of the Kenya Tobacco Control
And Health Promotion Alliance (Ketca)