Why mining Kenya's minerals is proving harder than finding them

Base Titanium mining site in Kwale. [File, Standard]

Kenya sits on mineral wealth with that has the potential to transform its economy, yet investors and communities say the country continues to struggle to convert that geological potential into meaningful economic value.

Industry players and investors point to an opaque licensing system, bureaucratic hurdles, regulatory uncertainty and what they describe as interference from technocrats as key obstacles, holding back mining projects and investment.

The obstacles range from overlapping land and mineral rights and environmental approvals to community consent disputes, lengthy negotiations with government and fragmented responsibilities among ministries, regulators, county governments and local administration.

The experience of the defunct Base Titanium illustrates why the time taken to develop a mine should not automatically be attributed to government delays. The Kwale mineral sands project took around 16 years from exploration, feasibility studies, environmental and social approvals, land acquisition, community engagement and licensing.

At Mrima Hills, the challenges have been compounded by the strategic importance of rare earths and niobium, competing interests over mineral rights and environmental and community concerns.

Pacific Wildcat’s Kenyan subsidiary, Cortec Mining Kenya, obtained its mining licence in March 2013, only weeks before the general election and the transition from the Kibaki to the Jubilee administration.

When the new administration came in, the then Mining Cabinet Secretary Najib Balala ordered a review of licences issued during the transition period. Cortec's licence was among those cancelled.

The government argued that many licences had been issued irregularly and that some companies had not met the legal requirements.

Coal prospects in Kitui and Kilifi have similarly encountered environmental, land and community issues, commercial viability concerns, policy changes and lengthy licensing processes, despite the establishment of their potential.

The scale of the problem is reflected in Kenya’s export figures. According to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics Economic Survey (KNBS) 2025, last year's export of titanium ores and concentrates were worth Sh1.726 billion, while soda ash earned Sh7.365 billion. Iron and steel exports were valued at Sh27.665 billion and essential oils at Sh25.139 billion.

Against this backdrop, the disputes in Taita Taveta, Kitui, Samburu, Magadi and Kwale are raising fundamental questions on whether Kenya can attract investment while protecting communities and ensuring transparent and predictable regulation.

For instance, the latest dispute over an iron ore mining permit in Kishushe, Taita Taveta County, illustrates the problem.  Archers Post Investments Limited, seeking a mining permit for iron ore, has asked the state department for mining to intervene over public participation required for its application.

In a letter to the director of mining dated August 20, 2026, the company said the mineral rights board required public participation before considering the permit. It sought guidance from the county mining officer on organising the stakeholder meeting but was allegedly directed to the area chief.

Archers Post said it was not challenging the role of local administration in community affairs but wanted clarification on the capacity in which the chief was expected to participate in a statutory mining process.

Kishushe Ranch has also experienced competing claims over iron ore interests. Last year, Kishushe Ranching Cooperative Society challenged an iron ore prospecting licence issued to the Devki Group, arguing that it had been granted without the free, prior and informed consent of rightful landowners.

The dispute involves a contested 45-year renewable lease covering about 14,500 acres. Community officials alleged that previous leaders approved the agreement without adequately consulting ranch members.

The cooperative also questioned the financial terms of the agreement, which provided for Sh100 per tonne of iron ore extracted and Sh50,000 a month for use of the land.

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights has previously identified land disputes, conflicting mineral claims, inadequate community participation, inaccurate land records and double licensing as challenges affecting mining in Taita Taveta.

At Oza Ranch, also in Taita Taveta, the conflict centres on the intersection between land ownership and mineral rights.  Community leaders say Pacific Industrial Company arrived in 2016 promising mineral prospecting. Residents supported the project in the hope of jobs and infrastructure.

The community now alleges that Pacific used the access and technical knowledge it gained to register and block the land in the Mining Cadastre, shutting out competing investors.

The suspension of Tata Chemicals Magadi’s mining operations and soda ash exports on July 28, 2026, showed how regulatory disputes can ripple through the economy.

The suspension followed prolonged engagement between the Ministry of Mining and the company over alleged unresolved obligations involving royalty payments, export reporting, community agreements, local employment and procurement, beneficiation and value addition, as well as environmental compliance.

Magadi says it has submitted the requested documents and information and is awaiting the ministry's review and decision.

The closure has also prompted scrutiny of its corporate social responsibility record. The company cites investments in healthcare, water, education and community grants, as well as recognition from the Kenya Association of Manufacturers.

Ironically, the Ministry of Mining and Blue Economy awarded Magadi the Local Content and Impact Award at the Excellence in Extractives Awards in April this year. In 2024, the National Mining Corporation of Kenya awarded it a Lifetime Achievement Award for Exemplary Corporate Social Responsibility.

Magadi says it has consistently paid the percentage of mining revenues stipulated under the Mining Act to the local community and royalties to the national government. The shutdown has nevertheless created uncertainty for industries and public institutions dependent on its soda ash.

Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company uses natural soda ash at its three major treatment plants and consumes more than 360 tonnes monthly to regulate the pH of treated water. KenGen also lists natural soda ash from Magadi among chemicals required for water treatment at its power stations.

The dispute therefore shows how mining regulation can disrupt entire industrial value chains. The emerging dispute over Mrima Hills in Kwale carries an even more strategic dimension.

The area contains rare earth elements and niobium, minerals considered important for advanced manufacturing, clean-energy technologies and defence. Kenya’s interest in developing the resource comes as major economies compete for secure supplies of critical minerals.

However, proposed arrangements involving the United States have triggered local concerns over consultation.

The Centre for Litigation Trust has gone to court seeking to stop implementation of the proposed deal until Parliament, the county government and local communities are involved.

The controversy is not necessarily about whether Kenya should mine its minerals. It is about who decides, whose consent counts and whether communities living alongside valuable resources have a meaningful voice.

Mrima Hills is particularly sensitive because surrounding land supports agriculture and settlement and has cultural significance to the Digo and wider Mijikenda communities.

Leaders argue that granting mineral rights without adequate consultation could undermine community land rights protected under Article 63 of the Constitution.

Similar tensions are emerging around coal reserves in Kitui and Kilifi and manganese prospects in Samburu, where competing interests and questions over community representation have complicated development.

Taken together, the disputes reveal a sector caught between enormous geological potential and an institutional system that investors and communities say remains difficult to navigate.

Kenya cannot afford to leave valuable minerals underground indefinitely while investors spend years navigating licences, competing claims and administrative processes. But neither can it pursue investment at the expense of communities whose land and livelihoods sit above those resources.

The answer is therefore bigger than issuing more mining licences.

Kenya needs a mining governance system in which mineral rights are clearly recorded, inactive claims are removed promptly, community consent is independently verified, public participation is genuinely inclusive and regulatory decisions are transparent.