Illicit brew crackdown: Where county and national govts’ responsibility begins and ends

Kenya's fight against illicit brew and substandard alcohol has reignited a discussion about which level of government bears responsibility. Deputy President Kithure Kindiki's directive for inspections of alcohol manufacturing facilities to ensure compliance with standards and regulations has sparked this debate, along with an invitation to a sector forum with county governors.

County governments lead the regulation of liquor outlets as it is a devolved function, responsible for deciding if premises meet licensing requirements and enforcing local controls. However, this doesn't mean counties are solely accountable for every bottle of illicit or substandard alcohol found in a licensed outlet. A liquor license authorizes a business to operate under specific conditions but does not make the product legal.

The law enforcement role falls to the National Police Service, while NACADA, KEBS, KRA, and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority handle responsibilities related to alcohol control, standards, taxation, and counterfeit goods. The National Government Administration Officers coordinate and provide intelligence support to these agencies.

Accountability becomes blurred when agencies work together in raids without clearly defining roles. The presence of illicit alcohol may be part of a larger supply chain, involving unlicensed manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers. Authorities need to identify where products were manufactured, transported, supplied, and whether taxes and standards were met.

Kindiki's directive emphasizes the need for intelligence-led, multi-agency operations to disrupt cartels and unlicensed manufacturers. He has also directed authorities to review alcohol regulation and strengthen cooperation between national and county governments. When harmful alcohol is discovered, accountability should be assigned to the specific failure rather than automatically to either level of government.

If an outlet lacks a required county license, county authorities must explain how it operated. If a licensed business sells counterfeit or substandard products, relevant agencies must address issues of standards, anti-counterfeit measures, taxation, and criminal enforcement. Kindiki's sector forum aims to center coordination in the renewed crackdown.

The debate should move beyond arrests and seizures to examine whether the regulatory system effectively prevents illegal alcohol from entering the market. County governments must fulfill their licensing and local regulatory responsibilities, while national institutions enforce criminal, standards, taxation, and other applicable laws within their mandates.

The real accountability question is whether these responsibilities are performed clearly and consistently. If an illegal operation persists despite these structures, authorities should pinpoint the precise institutional failure.

Therefore, the illicit brew issue in Kenya is not about choosing between county and national responsibility. It is about defining where each mandate begins and ends and whether gaps between them are being exploited by those distributing harmful alcohol.