Kenya’s Court of Appeals recent decision to halt the government’s push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a major victory for not only food sovereignty, but farmers’ rights, and environmental justice. For now, the brakes have been applied to what is clearly a corporate-driven agenda masked as a quick-fix to food insecurity. This ruling demonstrates the importance of safeguarding small-scale farmers and consumers while safeguarding Kenya’s rich biodiversity.
While Kenya’s courts have pressed pause, Ethiopia has gone full speed ahead, approving GMO maize and cotton varieties for commercial production. A country celebrated for its deep-rooted farming traditions and resilient indigenous seeds has now cleared the path for genetically engineered crops, supported under the promise of higher harvests and climate resilience. The National Variety Release Committee gave approval for TELA maize, engineered for insect resistance and drought tolerance, and Bt-GT cotton, tailored to withstand bollworms. Advocates argue that these varieties will increase yields and reduce the need for synthetic pesticides, potentially lowering production costs and minimising environmental and health risks. Nevertheless, history has taught us that embracing GMOs often comes with strings attached. These include corporate control over our seeds, dependency on expensive chemical inputs, the erosion of traditional farming systems, and the devastating impact on biodiversity caused by the monoculture systems that often accompany GMOs.
Kenya’s Court of Appeal decision to put a pause on GMOs and Ethiopia’s stance to embrace them exposes the contrasts in a larger battle over seed sovereignty and agricultural independence across the continent. While some African governments view GMOs as a roadmap to enhanced food security and agricultural modernisation, others warn against the potential loss of control over indigenous seed systems, biodiversity and the risks related to corporate dominance in the agricultural sector. These concerns are not baseless, as the extensive adoption of GMO crops could disrupt local food production systems making it challenging to monitor and regulate seed distribution effectively.
Beyond Kenya and Ethiopia, this fight for seed sovereignty is intensifying across the continent. Restrictive seed laws, free trade agreements, and international pressure are shaping Africa’s agricultural future in favour of corporate interests over food sovereignty. In Nigeria, civil society organisations have opposed seed laws that limit farmers’ rights to save and exchange seeds. In Ghana, farmer movements continue to push back on corporate control over seed distribution, concerned about the long-term threat of dependence on these seeds. Across Southern and Eastern Africa, harmonized seed regulations are being proposed with the risk of the exclusion of millions of smallholder farmers from their own food systems.
Against this backdrop, the Kenyan court ruling serves as a reminder of the need for comprehensive legal and institutional frameworks to assess the potential adverse health, environmental, and socio-economic impacts of GMOs before implementing policy shifts. It also highlights the importance of public participation and the consideration of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes related to agricultural biotechnology.
The upcoming Kenya seed litigation hearing in May 2025 supported by Greenpeace Africa is the next important moment in the fight for seed sovereignty. As someone who grew up in a farming community, I see this as a fight to protect the heart of our agrobiodiversity. A win for farmers would be a powerful signal across Africa that our food systems must serve people, not corporations. GMOs are not the answer, they promote monocultures, displace indigenous crops, and deepen farmer dependency. Instead, we must invest in agroecology and policies that put farmers, their knowledge, and their seeds at the center of Africa’s food future.
The growing debate around GMOs and seed laws raises important questions about the future of agriculture in Africa. Will we follow corporate-driven models that deepen rural poverty, and undermine community wellbeing and biodiversity, or choose sustainable solutions that empower farmers economically, preserve indigenous knowledge, and strengthen local food sovereignty? These choices must be guided by science, inclusive dialogue, and a strong commitment to protecting both people and the planet. True progress must be just, sustainable, and rooted in the needs and rights of the people it’s meant to serve, not in the profits of corporations.
Source: Green Peace