Former Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mithika Linturi has defended his role in the controversial fertiliser scandal, claiming that he was not fully in control of the ministry at the time the issue escalated. Speaking in a televised interview, Linturi revealed that internal interference undermined his authority, complicating his efforts to manage the situation.
He stated that despite holding the Cabinet Secretary position, other unnamed individuals within the ministry were influencing decisions and contradicting his directives. This, he argued, made it difficult for him to effectively steer the ministry and respond adequately to the scandal.
“When you are in a situation where you’re trying to address issues but are not in full control of what you want to do—how you want to bring things out—and part of your work is being done by others who contradict your position, then the matter becomes very messy. That is the situation we were in,” Linturi said.
While he did not name the individuals he believes were usurping his authority, his comments suggest a deep rift within the ministry and a lack of unified leadership during a critical time. Linturi maintained that this internal disarray contributed significantly to the mishandling of the fertiliser issue, which sparked public outcry and political backlash.
The scandal revolved around the distribution of what was widely reported as fake fertiliser to farmers across the country. However, Linturi has continued to push back against the label of “fake”, insisting that the products in question were substandard but not counterfeit.
According to him, the fertiliser failed to meet the country’s agricultural standards but was not intentionally faked or adulterated. He said that technical deficiencies in the product’s composition led to the poor performance in farms, but denied any deliberate deception in its manufacture or distribution.
“What I have been trying to tell Kenyan people is that we discovered there was substandard fertiliser and not fake,” he said. He also expressed frustration over how the issue was handled in the public and political domains, accusing various actors of turning it into a political football.
Linturi argued that the politicisation of the matter clouded public judgment and hindered the pursuit of truth. “This matter became so politicised, we lost direction in terms of management because we were in a country where, when subjected to a lynch mob, nobody wants to hear the truth,” he added.
Following the public uproar, a motion to impeach him was introduced in Parliament. Although a majority of Members of Parliament initially supported the motion, a select committee later ruled that there was insufficient evidence to implicate Linturi in any wrongdoing. He survived the impeachment attempt but was not reappointed when the entire Cabinet was dismissed during the Gen-Z-led protests that swept across the country.
Linturi’s latest comments appear to be an attempt to clear his name and reshape public perception of his tenure. As the country continues to grapple with questions around accountability and leadership in the agricultural sector, his remarks add a new dimension to the ongoing debate about governance and integrity in public service.
