11/09/2026
OPINION
TECHNOLOGY ALONE WILL NOT END KENYA’S ILLICIT ALCOHOL CRISIS
By Cornelius Kimbui
Kenya’s fight against illicit alcohol has reached a point where technology must become a central part of the solution but it should not be mistaken for a complete answer to a problem that is deeply rooted in enforcement, taxation, licensing, consumer awareness and accountability.
The discussions between the Senate Standing Committee on Information, Communication and Technology and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) offer an important opportunity to rethink how the country protects consumers from dangerous and illegal alcoholic products.
The proposed use of digital technologies, product traceability systems and secure identifiers could significantly strengthen the ability of authorities and consumers to establish whether a product is genuine.
A consumer should ideally be able to scan a product and obtain reliable information about its authenticity and origin.
But Kenya must be careful not to create another technology platform that operates in isolation.
The illicit alcohol problem is much wider than counterfeit branding.
It includes smuggled, tax-leaked, substandard, adulterated, unlicensed artisanal and surrogate alcohol.
Some products may carry genuine-looking bottles, labels or QR codes while containing unsafe or completely different substances.
That is why a QR code, by itself, cannot be presented as a guarantee of safety.
The proposed authentication framework is therefore most useful if it brings together the different pieces of information already held by government agencies.
ACA can focus on brand and intellectual-property authenticity, while the Kenya Revenue Authority verifies excise compliance, the Kenya Bureau of Standards confirms standards requirements, and county governments provide licensing information.
Other agencies involved in alcohol control, consumer protection, public health and criminal investigations must also be able to contribute relevant information within their legal mandates.
This interoperability could be one of the most important elements of the proposal.
For years, Kenyans have watched government agencies sometimes operate with information that does not effectively flow across institutional boundaries.
A manufacturer may be known to one authority, a licensing issue may sit with another, while tax, standards and enforcement information remain elsewhere.
Technology should help close these gaps.
The reported seizure figures cited by ACA, showing a large proportion of seized alcohol as locally manufactured, should also encourage policymakers to look beyond the traditional assumption that illicit alcohol is primarily an importation problem.
If local production, bottling, refilling, packaging and distribution are significant parts of the challenge, then domestic supply chains must receive equal attention.
The proposed registration of local manufacturers, authorised bottlers and contract manufacturers could therefore be an important step toward establishing accountability throughout the production chain.
However, technology must be accompanied by strong physical enforcement.
Counterfeiters are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
They can clone codes, reuse genuine bottles and labels, substitute contents and exploit online platforms to reach consumers.
A digital system that is not supported by inspections, laboratory testing, intelligence gathering and prosecution could easily become another hurdle that criminals learn to bypass.
There is also a danger of creating systems that increase the cost of doing legitimate business without effectively stopping illegal operators.
The proposed pilot approach is therefore sensible.
Before nationwide implementation, government should test the system on selected high-risk products and establish whether it is secure, affordable, user-friendly and genuinely useful to enforcement officers and consumers.
The pilot should not simply measure how many products are scanned. It should establish whether the system helps authorities identify illegal production, tax evasion, counterfeit goods, suspicious distribution networks and repeat offenders.
Consumer education must also be part of the strategy.
A sophisticated authentication system will have limited impact if consumers do not know how to use it or if they continue purchasing suspiciously cheap alcohol without understanding the risks.
The public needs simple information on how to verify products and, equally importantly, what to do when a product fails verification.
There is also a need for serious investment in cybersecurity.
If the system is to become part of Kenya's national product-authentication infrastructure, its databases and identifiers will become valuable targets for criminals.
Strong safeguards will therefore be required to prevent cloning, tampering, unauthorised access and manipulation of product information.
Ultimately, Kenya should avoid viewing the proposed digital security device as a magic solution.
The real opportunity lies in building a national ecosystem in which technology, regulation, taxation, standards, licensing, intelligence, enforcement and consumer protection work together.
The Senate has an important role to play in ensuring that any legislative amendments create a framework that is practical, transparent and capable of adapting as technology and criminal methods evolve.
Technology can help Kenya get there. But technology must be backed by action.
