• December 22, 2024
  • Last Update July 1, 2024 6:17 PM
  • Nairobi

3 governors from the coast agree to attend meeting to address Muguka effects after Ruto’s intervention

By Patricia Mollyne Mataga

President William Ruto has made yet another key move aimed at quelling ongoing hostility between Muguka traders and coastal counties.

At least two counties at the coast last week announced a ban on transportation and sale of the crop, sparking concerns from the traders.

But on Monday, President Ruto hosted leaders from the Muguka-growing counties of Embu and Meru where he declared his administration’s support for the crop.

In a statement after the meeting, the President said Muguka was a legal crop and that his administration would support the farmers with Ksh500 million.

Later, Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi declared a ban imposed on Muguka by the two counties illegal.

And on Tuesday, the State House in an update said the President had a phone conservation with governors from three counties at the coast.

The conversation yielded to an agreement for the three counties to participate in an upcoming stakeholder engagement over the Muguka trade.

The engagement is planned for this week.

“President William Samoei Ruto on Tuesday had a phone conversation with Governors of Mombasa, Kilifi and Taita-Taveta Counties on their concerns in the sale of muguka,” read part of the State House statement.

“The three Governors agreed to participate in a meeting of stakeholders to be convened by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock this week. It follows a session on Monday between President Ruto and the leadership of Embu County led by Governor Cecily Mbarire,” it added.

In addition, the State House noted that during the conversation, the President agreed with the three county bosses to convene a meeting of political leaders of the affected Counties next week.

The latest development comes hours after the court declared a ban on Muguka in Kilifi and Mombasa counties illegal.

Governors in the two devolved units, while issuing an executive order banning the crop argued that it was negatively impacting on the productivity of their locals.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *