To stamp out counterfeit alcohol, we need a coordinated national strategy

Kenya is confronting a growing alcoholic drinks menace whose impact extends far beyond excessive consumption. Illicit, counterfeit, smuggled and unregulated products have become a public health, consumer safety, revenue and national security concern.

Although government agencies continue to conduct raids, seizures and arrests, illicit alcohol remains deeply embedded in the market. The question is no longer whether Kenya has enough institutions and laws, but whether they are sufficiently coordinated to dismantle the supply chains behind the trade.

A study commissioned by the Alcoholic Beverages Association of Kenya in conjunction with Euromonitor International and published in August 2026 estimates that illegal alcohol accounts for about 60 per cent of alcoholic beverages consumed in Kenya, a significant increase since 2022. While such market estimates require continued validation through official research and government data, the message is clear: illicit alcohol is now a major part of the market, with serious consequences.

The most immediate concern is consumer health and safety. Products manufactured or distributed outside the regulated system may bypass quality and safety controls. Consumers may have no way of knowing their source, ingredients or manufacturing conditions. Kenya has previously witnessed tragic incidents involving unsafe alcohol, demonstrating that illicit alcohol is not merely an enforcement problem but a threat to human life.

The trade also deprives the government of excise duty, Value Added Tax and other revenues. At a time when resources are needed for health, education, infrastructure and other public services, such economic leakage cannot be ignored.

Quality compliance

Illicit alcohol further undermines legitimate manufacturers and traders. Law-abiding businesses bear the cost of taxation, licensing, quality compliance, security features and distribution controls, while illicit operators evade these obligations and can sell at artificially low prices. The result is unfair competition that rewards criminal enterprise. The problem must therefore be viewed within the broader illicit-trade ecosystem, rather than as a matter involving individual bottles or retailers.

Data from the Anti-Counterfeit Authority’s enforcement activities between 2024 and 2026 reinforces this concern. Of about 1,200 counterfeiting complaints received, 124 involved alcoholic drinks — about 11 per cent. This makes alcohol a significant category within the wider counterfeit and illicit-trade environment.

The 2017 Presidential Directive on illicit goods remains an important foundation for pooling government resources. But coordination must extend beyond joint raids to real-time intelligence sharing, common databases, joint investigations, harmonised inspections and coordinated prosecution.

Institutions including the National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Nacada), Anti-Counterfeit Authority, Kenya Revenue Authority, Kenya Bureau of Standards, Directorate of Criminal Investigations, National Police Service and county governments should establish a structured mechanism for tackling illicit alcohol.

Legitimate manufacturers must also strengthen supply-chain security. Modern track-and-trace systems should become an essential part of the industry, enabling products to be followed from manufacture or importation through distribution to retail. Secure authentication features would help consumers and enforcement officers distinguish genuine products from suspicious ones.

Kenya should consider an Integrated Product Management and Authentication System for high-risk fast-moving consumer goods, including alcoholic beverages. Such a system could combine product authentication, track-and-trace, standards verification and enforcement intelligence, allowing the origin of products entering the market to be verified quickly.

Effective enforcement

Technology, however, cannot replace effective enforcement. Agencies need appropriate tools, trained personnel, laboratory capacity and continuous market surveillance rather than occasional crackdowns.

Enforcement should also become intelligence-led and target the source of the trade. Arresting a small retailer may remove some illicit products but does little to dismantle the network. Investigations should focus on illegal manufacturers, financiers, warehouses, transporters, import channels and organised distribution networks.

Nacada’s alcohol-control interventions remain equally important, particularly measures aimed at reducing harmful consumption, restricting access by minors and regulating alcohol availability and promotion. But these measures must operate alongside action against illicit supply. Restricting the legitimate market without controlling illegal production and distribution risks creating opportunities for illicit operators.

Kenya can also draw lessons from East Africa and beyond, where countries face similar challenges involving informal alcohol markets, unsafe products and cross-border trade. Stronger regional cooperation is therefore essential.

International experience shows that effective alcohol control requires a combination of public health interventions, taxation, restrictions on harmful marketing, road-safety measures and enforcement against illicit trade. No single intervention is enough.

Kenya’s objective should not simply be more arrests or highly publicised raids. It should be a secure, regulated alcohol market in which consumers can trust the products they buy, legitimate businesses compete fairly, and the government collects the revenue due to it.

The reported growth of illicit alcohol should be a national wake-up call. Kenya must move from sporadic crackdowns to permanent market surveillance, isolated operations to coordinated intelligence, and bottle seizures to dismantling the criminal networks behind the trade.

Illicit alcohol is ultimately a public health, consumer protection, economic security and rule-of-law issue. Kenya cannot afford to address it through fragmented interventions.

The goal should be clear: make illicit alcohol unprofitable, difficult to manufacture, impossible to move undetected and increasingly risky for criminal networks to trade.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

The writer is the Director of Enforcement at the Anti-Counterfeit Authority.