By Billy Gichohi
The controversy surrounding the revised minimum yield for consolidated cargo has been presented to the public as a spontaneous uprising of aggrieved small traders against “an overbearing tax authority.” This is far from true.
What we are witnessing is not a manufactured revolt carefully orchestrated, and scripted by politicians who operate in the shadows hiding behind unwitting intermediaries whose livelihoods they claim to defend. The small trader, in this drama, is a prop.
Cargo consolidation was institutionalised to shield small-scale importers, allowing those whose parcels cannot fill a container to pool their goods and access simplified clearance procedures. The revised benchmark of Ksh 3.2 million was reached after extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, agreed in July 2026 with trader representatives present, and implemented only after a one-month grace period requested by those same stakeholders.
KRA has consistently supported consolidation as a legitimate trade facilitation measure. However, a technical adjustment has been transformed into a narrative of state oppression, complete with picketing crowds and ultimatums.
But who is the beneficiary of this theatre? Certainly not the small trader, whose interests are best served by a functioning, predictable customs framework rather than chaotic confrontation. The beneficiaries are the shadowy political figures seeking to foment public discontent to gain political capital.
The timing of the so-called outcry is curious. As Kenya approaches a general election in 2027, the political marketplace is crowded with contenders seeking any grievance to champion. The consolidated cargo issue, obscure though it may be, offers a convenient vessel for those who wish to position themselves as defenders of such groupings as small traders.
By inciting small traders to reject a framework designed for their protection, these shadowy operatives are creating a spectacle that serves their ambitions while harming the very constituency they claim to represent.
Traders are being urged to reject a benchmark that remains below the potential tax liability of many containers. They are being told that compliance is surrender, and that only street-level confrontation will force the state to retreat.
The fact of the matter is that the state did not impose this revision. It negotiated it with trader representatives and granted additional time for preparation. To frame the matter as a contest between oppressive authority and defenceless citizens is to use the devils script to score ill-gotten Bonga points.
The consolidators themselves are not blameless in this equation. Some among them have thrived under the old benchmark, and the revision threatens arrangements that were, in certain cases, too generous. The temptation to resist through political mobilisation rather than commercial adjustment is therefore understandable.
KRA has extended an open hand, offering traders the option to have their containers verified individually or to de-consolidate their goods and make separate declarations. The law remains anchored in transaction value, and no trader is compelled to accept the benchmark if it does not suit their goods. These are the actions of an institution seeking dialogue, not conflict. Those who urge defiance in the face of such openness are not friends of the small trader. They are opportunists who have found a convenient crowd.
The small traders of Kenya are not naïve. They understand that politics is a trade in promises, and they have learned to distinguish between genuine advocacy and the exploitation of grievance. What they may not yet see is the identity of those who stand behind the current agitation, whispering instructions and funding disruptions.
Those hidden hands will be exposed in time, and when they are, the traders who followed their promptings will find themselves bearing the costs while their instigators retreat to safer ground.
Gichohi is an aspiring politician Nairobi-based currently working for an international organisation