In Kenya, almost every household owns at least one mitumba (second-hand clothing) item, and their affordability and value for money have made them a daily choice for many. This is not just a consumption phenomenon—it concerns the livelihoods of millions.

A Global Supply Chain, Not Mere Donation

Kenya's mitumba mainly comes from countries such as China, the United States, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada, with China being the largest source. Most of these clothes begin as donations and, after sorting, passing through traders, and shipping, eventually arrive at Nairobi's Gikomba market or towns like Eldoret and Kisumu, forming a vast international trading network rather than direct charitable giving.

Quality Grades and Health Risks

Traders classify mitumba into Grade A or premium based on subjective perception, but this is not a government health certification. Researchers warn that used textiles may carry bacteria such as E. coli and Klebsiella. However, the presence of microorganisms does not necessarily cause disease; the risk depends on exposure and contamination levels. The sensible advice is to wash and sun-dry thoroughly before wearing, with extra caution for underwear and swimwear.

Why Do Kenyans Prefer Mitumba?

Beyond the price advantage, many Kenyans find mitumba sturdier and more durable than cheap new clothes, and they can get international brands at lower cost. For young people, mitumba has become a fashion trend rather than a symbol of poverty. Therefore, calls to "buy local" alone are hard to sustain unless local products can genuinely compete on quality, price, and design.

The Decline of Textiles and Mitumba's Employment Contribution

In the 1980s, Kenya's textile industry directly employed over 200,000 people, far more than today. The decline is linked to imported second-hand clothes, but stems more from aging equipment, high costs, and policy missteps. Meanwhile, the mitumba trade has created about 2 million livelihood positions spanning import, transport, and retail. The core question today is not how many jobs mitumba has destroyed, but how to preserve mitumba livelihoods while developing local manufacturing.

The Path to Coexistence

An abrupt full ban on mitumba would harm consumers and traders and would not solve the structural problems of manufacturing. Industry consensus calls for coexistence: allow the affordable second-hand clothing market to exist while strengthening local garment competitiveness by improving electricity supply, logistics, and credit, and building a complete cotton-to-garment supply chain. Government procurement (such as school uniforms, medical, and security uniforms) can create stable demand for domestic products. In addition, the leather and footwear industries still have potential, and the advantages of the livestock sector should be leveraged. Local brands also need to focus on design, fashion incubation, and trade fair promotion to win consumers with quality and creativity.

In short, Kenya should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to mitumba, but should pursue a two-pronged strategy: create conditions for manufacturing and let consumers voluntarily choose local products. This may be the wiser economic path.

Source: Mitumba vs manufacturing: Kenya's clothing dilemma · Originally published on 2026-08-25