Kenya will not ban second-hand clothing imports, the president confirms

Kenya’s President William Ruto stated on Tuesday that the country will not ban the import of second-hand clothing, known locally as "mitumba". This was more than a domestic reassurance to market traders, it was a clear political signal in a global debate increasingly framed around textile waste, trade justice and industrial development.

SHORT SUMMARY

Kenya’s decision not to ban second-hand clothing imports challenges dominant narratives that portray reuse as a waste problem or a threat to local textile industries. Instead, it highlights the role of second-hand markets in livelihoods, affordability and circular economies, while exposing the need for more evidence-based trade and waste policies.

From “textile waste

” to functioning second-hand clothing markets

In recent years, second-hand clothing exports to African countries have frequently been described in policy and advocacy debates as a form of waste dumping. Critics argue that unwanted garments from Europe and North America undermine local industries and leave importing countries to manage unusable leftovers.

Kenya’s position complicates that narrative.

Mitumba is deeply embedded in the country’s economy, supporting millions of livelihoods across import, sorting, repair and retail activities. It also provides affordable clothing for a large share of the population. Speaking at State House in Nairobi, President Ruto made the government’s position explicit.

“We cannot ban mitumba,” Ruto said. “It is an important source of clothing for many Kenyans, and it supports millions of jobs. Our responsibility is to manage the sector properly, not to destroy livelihoods.”

For trader representatives, the statement was long overdue. Teresiah Njenga, chairperson of the Mitumba Consortium Association of Kenya (MCAK), has repeatedly argued that second-hand clothing should not be conflated with waste.

Second-hand import and trade will not be banned in Kenya, President Ruto confirmed on Tuseday

“Mitumba is not rubbish,” Teresiah said. “It is a product with demand, value and an entire economy around it. The problem is not reuse, but poor-quality exports and the lack of responsibility earlier in the value chain.”

Do second-hand clothing imports undermine local textile production

One of the most persistent arguments for restricting second-hand imports is that they undermine domestic textile industries. Yet research over the past decade has consistently failed to establish a clear causal link between second-hand clothing imports and the decline of local manufacturing.

In many African countries, textile industries began weakening long before second-hand markets expanded, due to high production costs, unreliable energy supply, lack of investment and competition from low-cost new garments produced elsewhere. In Kenya, second-hand trade today coexists with both local manufacturing and export-oriented garment production.

Ruto’s emphasis on balance rather than prohibition reflects this reality.

“We want a fair environment where local production can grow, but without punishing traders and consumers,” he said.

Trade policy, textile waste and global responsibility

Kenya’s decision also has a strategic trade policy dimension. As both an importer of second-hand clothing and an exporter of garments under international trade agreements, an outright ban would have risked diplomatic and economic repercussions.

At the same time, international discussions on textile waste, extended producer responsibility and export controls are accelerating, particularly in Europe. Kenya’s stance positions the country not as a passive recipient of waste, but as an actor calling for more realistic and evidence-based approaches to reuse.

For MCAK, the message is clear.

For MCAK, the message is clear.

“If exporting countries are serious about sustainability, they must fix overproduction and quality at the source,” Teresiah said. “Banning second-hand in Africa does not solve the problem. It just hides it.”

A broader policy signal beyond Kenya

Kenya’s announcement does not resolve the structural challenges of the global fashion system. But it does challenge simplified narratives where reuse is framed as an obstacle to development.

Instead, it points to a more complex truth. Second-hand markets are not a temporary failure of the system. They are a central part of how clothing circulates, delivers value and extends product life.

In that sense, Kenya’s refusal to ban mitumba is not just a national policy choice. It is a reminder that solutions to textile waste must address the entire value chain, not just where clothes end up after their first owner.