This archive report was first published on 30 June 2020.
On June 30, 2020, the government suspended importation of mitumba as a Covid-19 prevention measure, but many argue that this was a flimsy ground for the ban.
Traders spent Sh17.77 billion on second-hand clothes imports in 2019, and the ban has been met with opposition from those who rely on this industry for their livelihoods.
One of the main arguments against the ban is that it is a protectionist measure that will harm local businesses and consumers. The Kenya Association of Manufacturers has been pushing for the ban, but many argue that this is a self-serving move that will benefit local producers at the expense of consumers.
Another argument against the ban is that it is based on a false premise. The idea that low-cost used garments from Western countries are what depress demand for clothes produced domestically is not supported by evidence.
Instead, the decline of local apparel production is linked to competition from low-cost Asian competitors who export to Africa's domestic market. If local apparel producers want a ban on competition, their target should be importation of new clothes, not mitumba.
Furthermore, the ban on mitumba imports is not a moral argument, as some have suggested. Many people proudly wear mitumba clothes and shoes, and see no problem with buying and wearing used items.
Finally, the article drew a lesson from Rwanda, which implemented a similar ban on mitumba imports. However, Rwanda's economy is much smaller than Kenya's, and it is not clear that the ban has been successful in Rwanda.
Kenya's textile and apparel industry has been transformed by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), and forgoing this agreement would have significant economic consequences.
