Uhuru Couldn't Deal With Ruto Swiftly

 In late 2016, I broke the story here about a fallout between Kenya's President and his deputy. At the time, I published most of my information under what I called Comic Witches Patron Notes. Despite clarifying that my sources were credible, many of my loyal readers—and most Kenyans—thought I had lost my mind. Why? Because the information seemed absurd, even ridiculous, to many. After all, who would believe there could be a rift between a president and his deputy just before a general election, when the deputy was expected to be his running mate? Especially with Raila Odinga’s popularity growing by the day, the idea seemed far-fetched.

On the surface, my revelations appeared illogical. But I consider myself a deep analyst, the kind who digs beyond public information to provide well-researched reports. Many of my readers disagreed with me then, and some still doubt the validity of what I reported, even though subsequent events have proven otherwise. The truth is, politics rarely operates on logic. It involves human emotions, changing circumstances, and seizing opportunities. This explains why decisions in politics often defy conventional reasoning.

A question many Kenyans asked at the time was: Why couldn’t President Uhuru Kenyatta deal with his deputy if there was indeed a problem? As the President with sweeping powers, couldn’t he act decisively, even bypassing constitutional limits, as we’ve seen in the past? That’s a valid question, but the answer lies in understanding Kenya's political dynamics, which involve far more than simply removing individuals from office.

To illustrate, let’s look at a historical example from Kenya’s past. When President Daniel arap Moi assumed power following the death of Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta, it took him a long time to assert his authority. During this period, a powerful figure in his government, Charles Njonjo, fell from grace. However, his removal wasn’t a swift action by Moi. It was a calculated process that spanned years. Why? Because in Kenya, removing someone from office often disrupts entire networks of influence and political alliances.

In Njonjo’s case, his downfall began with a cousin, Andrew Njenga Mwenje, who accused him of plotting against the government. The allegations eventually led to a commission of inquiry that painted Njonjo as a traitor. The case had little evidence, but it served its political purpose: discrediting Njonjo and dismantling his influence.

This historical precedent shows that in Kenya, removing a powerful figure isn’t just about legality or authority—it’s about navigating political repercussions carefully. It’s a reminder that politics is about strategy, timing, and managing perceptions, often over long periods.

So, while many dismissed my reporting in 2016, the unfolding events confirmed that the wheels of political change in Kenya turn slowly but deliberately. And for those wondering why it seemed illogical at the time, remember: humans are emotional, not purely logical, beings. Decisions in politics are rarely straightforward, and understanding them requires looking beyond surface-level assumptions.