Govt must clarify SI 87 of 2025
Statutory Instrument (SI) 87 of 2025 was introduced with a clear economic and developmental objective to strengthen domestic agriculture, reduce dependence on imported grains and oilseeds, and compel processors to increase local sourcing.
In principle, this reflects a coherent import-substitution strategy aimed at deepening value chains and supporting local production.
However, while the policy intent is defensible, its implementation is now generating uncertainty that risks undermining both market stability and policy credibility.
Concerns raised by major industry players, including Innscor Africa Limited, should not be dismissed as routine corporate caution. The company has pointed to “conflicting pronouncements and interpretations” surrounding SI 87 of 2025, noting that this uncertainty is already contributing to pricing instability and inflationary pressure in maize- and soya-based products. This is a significant signal in a sector where predictability is essential.
When a systemically important processor cannot reliably forecast input costs, that uncertainty is inevitably transmitted through the value chain—resulting in volatile pricing, inconsistent product costs, and reduced confidence for both producers and consumers.
At the centre of implementation is the Agricultural Marketing Authority (AMA), whose regulatory role in grain and oilseed markets is critical. Yet the current environment suggests not a failure of policy intent, but a breakdown in policy communication, coordination, and operational alignment.
Once gazetted, a statutory instrument should provide a stable and unambiguous framework for market conduct. It should not become subject to shifting interpretations across different administrative or enforcement channels. Where ambiguity emerges, it weakens compliance certainty and distorts market behaviour.
This lack of clarity introduces several risks. First, it creates an inflationary bias in essential food commodities, particularly maize-based staples and cooking oil inputs, which are central to household consumption. Second, it discourages long-term planning by processors who are forced to hedge against regulatory uncertainty in addition to normal market risks. Third, it risks undermining the broader objective of boosting domestic production by weakening investment signals to both farmers and value-chain actors.
While the objective of reducing import dependence is economically sound, policy effectiveness depends not only on direction, but on clarity, consistency, and enforceability.
Where multiple interpretations arise, markets default to caution and in food systems, caution is quickly reflected in higher prices.
It is therefore imperative that authorities issue an immediate, consolidated, and authoritative clarification of SI 87 of 2025. This should clearly define sourcing requirements, import conditions (where applicable), enforcement mechanisms, and any transitional arrangements. Equally important, implementing agencies must adopt a coordinated and unified communication stance to eliminate contradictory guidance.
In volatile commodity markets, policy uncertainty can be as destabilising as supply shocks.
