Former Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi has revealed that the substandard fertiliser distributed in Kenya stemmed from a procurement rule that allowed the importation of different types of fertiliser material.
Speaking on NTV’s Fixing the Nation , Mr Linturi said Kenya received 34,000 metric tons of raw fertiliser material from Russia, which was supposed to be blended locally, and 16,000 metric tonnes of finished urea from Algeria, meant for top dressing.
He clarified that the Russian consignment was not ready-to-use and required proper local processing, which may not have been done correctly, leading to quality concerns.
Mr Linturi, who was fired from his role after the dissolution of the Cabinet following youth-led protests in June last year, maintained that the problem arose from how the raw materials were handled after importation, not from the procurement decision itself.
“We received this rule, and this is where I suspect the problem of substandard fertiliser came from. In both years, we got 34,000 metric tonnes of fertiliser or material from Russia and 16,000 tonnes from Algeria.
Nobody knows exactly who stored that material. And this is where the story is. The 16,000 metric tons was urea, a finished product used for top dressing — while the 34,000 metric tonnes from Russia was raw material meant to be blended to produce fertiliser,” Mr Linturi said.
According to the former CS, the urea from Algeria was a finished product intended for top dressing, a method used in farming to supply crops with essential nutrients during their growth stages.
In contrast, the Russian shipment was raw material, meant to be blended locally into usable fertiliser products for distribution to farmers.
“The issue did not originate from the countries of origin or even the intention behind the imports. It’s the local handling, especially the blending process, that raised concerns,” said Mr Linturi.
He said there was no fake fertiliser, but acknowledged that if the input does not meet required standards, the farmer will not get optimal yields.
“There was no fake fertiliser,” Mr Linturi said.
The once-rated worst-performing minister said he does not take any responsibility for the procurement and distribution of substandard fertiliser.
He emphasized that his role as a minister was purely policy-oriented, not operational, and that the responsibility of accounting for ministry funds lies with the Principal Secretary.
“As a country, we need to relook at how we handle agricultural imports and ensure that systems are watertight from procurement to the point of delivery,” he stated.
He admitted that some of the fertiliser supplied did not meet the required standards but pointed out that by the time the issue was raised, the product had already been distributed to farmers, making it difficult to recall.
He claimed that the decision for the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) to procure fertiliser from a specific company was made by the Head of Public Service, Mr Felix Koskei.
He confirmed that the fertiliser from Russia needed to be blended before distribution to farmers, and this process was not followed as required.
“Instructions were needed. The donations had to be blended,” he emphasised.
The former CS further clarified that he was not investigating the matter personally, stating, “I’m not DCI. I’m not the State House. The police and DCI were responsible for the investigation.”
He said he was out of the country at the time, and was surprised to learn that a letter had been written on his behalf indicating he was part of a decision to halt distribution, even though he had not returned or participated in the said meeting.
“When I came back, I immediately explained the situation to my boss, and we agreed that the matter would be addressed as a top priority, I couldn’t understand why they were not answering my calls and I came to discover that the individuals were at the Police Station recording statements with the DCI,” he said.
Mr Linturi claimed that while trying to manage the distribution of the fertiliser, decisions were being made unilaterally by others, leading to contradictions and confusion.
"There was a disconnect in how we addressed the matter. The PS did things differently from what we had agreed," he said.
