Kenya is a lightweight in alcohol consumption, with Helgi Library ranking the country 113th out of 163 nations for per capita consumption, at 14.4 litres in 2021. Over the past thirty years, this figure has scarcely increased, suggesting that alcohol consumption is not a worsening issue. Regional comparisons support this view. 

Kenyans drink far less than their neighbours, with Uganda at 12.2 litres and Tanzania at 10.4 litres per capita annually. This places Kenya well below the East African average of 3.8 litres, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) figures. So the panic that has led the National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA) to develop a National Policy for the Prevention, Management, and Control of Alcohol, Drugs, and Substance Abuse (2025) that introduces sweeping changes without proper industry involvement is inexplicable. 

The policy includes strict proposals, such as increasing the legal drinking and handling age from 18 to 21 years, establishing 300-metre alcohol-free buffer zones around schools, churches, and homes. It also suggests introducing minimum unit pricing and progressive taxation, while banning subsidies, prohibiting celebrity endorsements, sports sponsorships, and glamorised content. Additionally, it advocates a complete ban on online sales, home delivery, and alcohol sales in supermarkets, along with monitoring digital platforms and implementing age restrictions on content.

A closer review reveals that the policy lacks a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), as required under the policy formulation guidelines issued last year. It was heavily skewed towards civil society.  Consultation was neither broad-based nor balanced, leaning heavily toward civil society perspectives. This is not the way to address a legal, tax-paying industry that contributes billions of shillings in revenue. Without a Regulatory Impact Assessment providing evidence to justify these measures, the policy cannot move forward credibly.

It is essential to recognise that Kenya operates a dual alcohol market, a regulated, tax-paying formal sector and a pervasive illicit market. With illegal alcohol already widely consumed, overly restrictive measures risk pushing more consumers into unregulated, unsafe supply chains. Effective regulation must therefore be strategic, evidence-driven, and inclusive, focusing on enforcement, public education, and targeted interventions rather than blanket prohibitions.

Kenya needs a policy that addresses harmful drinking without undermining legitimate businesses or depriving the government of significant tax revenues. The goal should be a balanced framework that curbs abuse, protects public health, and sustains economic contribution, because only a fair, well-informed approach will deliver lasting results.

NACADA is, seemingly, intent on pushing alcohol out of sight, as if invisibility alone will solve the problem. But what’s hidden doesn’t disappear; it festers. The prohibitionist attitude to solving the problem is not the most effective way to approach it. The new policy refuses to acknowledge the existing problems, which are mainly implementation-based, by imposing additional restrictions on accessibility. 

This is not a sustainable solution and will only serve to drive alcohol consumption underground. NACADA needs to consult more widely to gather perspectives that are more balanced and workable, rather than simply implementing WHO suggestions without tailoring them to the local context. Otherwise, we will have to roll back some of these provisions over time as something that was not problematic in the first place worsens.