Holding Kenyan Leaders Accountable for Their Words

Karen Nyamu’s statement, “Twathie murima, murima nitwahutirie, turenda kumeikia,” which loosely translates to “We’ve gone to the mountain, we touched the mountain, now we want to stick in the finger,” is vulgar, disrespectful, and deeply unbecoming of a public official. She is in the presence of MCA KURURIA NJOROGE. The crude metaphor, especially in the political context, suggests entitlement, arrogance, and a disturbing lack of decorum. For a sitting senator to use such language in public is a direct insult to the dignity of leadership and to the citizens she serves. It reflects a worrying decline in the tone and ethics of political discourse in Kenya.

President Ruto’s remarks are laced with arrogance, condescension, and open contempt for critics of his livestock vaccination program. Instead of addressing legitimate concerns with facts and transparency, he resorts to insults, dismissing those who question the vaccine as "foolish" and "ignorant." His statement about having a PhD suggests that he believes his academic credentials place him above scrutiny, reducing public discourse to a show of ego rather than accountability. By insulting Kenyans and belittling those with differing opinions, he undermines the dignity of his office and further erodes public trust in his leadership.

Farah Maalim’s vulgar insults toward Kenyans are both disrespectful and disgraceful. During the June 2024 Gen Z-led protests, he had also suggested the killing of 5,000 protesters, cementing his reputation for inflammatory rhetoric. That such language was used in the president’s presence without any rebuke suggests tacit approval, further eroding the dignity of leadership. It is unacceptable for leaders to insult citizens or threaten violence, especially when addressing legitimate grievances. Respect and accountability should define leadership, not vulgarity and intimidation.

Mwangi Ichung'wah's claims that protestors were *locking themselves in Airbnbs to fake abductions* and *teargassing themselves* serve as a clear attempt to delegitimize genuine dissent. His remarks came on December 31st, 2023, during a period when five young men had reportedly been abducted, and shortly after opposition leaders were tear-gassed in Nyandarua. The timing and content of his statement not only trivialized real fears of state repression but also implied that citizens and leaders staging peaceful resistance were fabricating their own suffering — a deeply dismissive and dangerous narrative from a senior government figure.

Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah’s remark, "Huna mbuzi, huna ng'ombe na una nyamba maneno hayasaidii mwananchi wa kawaida," dismisses critics of livestock vaccination in a derogatory and unconstructive manner. This crass language, including references to farts, is beneath a leader of his stature and distracts from the core issue. Critics have raised concerns about the lack of transparency regarding what the cattle are being vaccinated against. Such dismissive rhetoric alienates the public and fails to address valid questions about accountability and the program’s intent.

President Ruto’s remarks about livestock vaccination and farts are unbecoming of a head of state, reducing the dignity of his powerful office. Instead of addressing critical questions about the vaccine’s purpose, contents, and efficacy—especially given its ties to Bill Gates’ emissions-reduction agenda—he resorts to crude language and condescension. Such undignified behavior shows a lack of manners and respect for the presidency, turning a serious policy discussion into a mockery. Vaccination campaigns are better suited for local administration, like chiefs, rather than requiring direct involvement from the president. This approach only deepens public skepticism, undermines trust in leadership, and trivializes the pressing concerns of citizens.

MP Kimani Ichung’wah’s personal attack on Henry Omondi for opposing the Adani deal is both discourteous and reprehensible. Targeting an individual, especially someone vulnerable and unable to retaliate, reflects cowardice and a lack of respect for differing opinions. Criticizing Omondi’s economic understanding instead of addressing the legitimate concerns about the Adani deal undermines constructive dialogue. Leaders should focus on defending policies with facts, not demeaning citizens to stifle dissent.

President Ruto's dismissal of critics as "mad, unreasonable, and possibly stupid" for opposing the FMD and PPR vaccine reflects his tendency to alienate dissenting voices instead of addressing their concerns. His partnership with Bill Gates on the vaccine has sparked skepticism, given its unpopularity and his reputation for dishonesty. Such rhetoric not only fuels vaccine hesitancy but also deepens public mistrust, undermining efforts to promote health initiatives in a transparent and inclusive manner.

Oscar Sudi’s remarks dismissing critics as “fake know-it-alls” and undermining legitimate grievances about SHIF/SHA reveal a stark disconnect between leadership and the people. His party’s promise to uplift hustlers contrasts sharply with his disdainful tone toward juakali workers and critics. The failure of SHIF/SHA, costing taxpayers 104 billion, justifies public outcry, especially amidst widespread suffering due to inadequate healthcare. Ironically, Sudi’s lack of parliamentary contribution and display of wealth further erode his credibility as a public servant.

The president's speech frames critics as inherently negative, delegitimizing genuine concerns about his policies. By labeling dissent as "pepo chafu," he undermines public discourse, shifting focus from the real issues—such as detrimental economic policies and lack of transparency—to moral judgments. This rhetoric polarizes citizens and discourages constructive critique, limiting accountability. It impacts public perception by portraying opposition as anti-progress, which can stifle debate on policies directly affecting livelihoods and national welfare.

President Ruto’s dismissal of Adani critics as people who "have never stepped foot on airport land" reflects arrogance and trivializes legitimate concerns over public asset privatization. The controversial Adani deal, tied to corruption investigations, raised red flags about transparency and the safeguarding of public goods like JKIA and KETRACO. His rhetoric ignores the gravity of these issues, framing critics as uninformed rather than addressing the ethical implications. Such remarks undermine public trust in leadership and democratic accountability.

This statement by Francis Atwoli, the long-serving COTU chairman, reflects the arrogance often exhibited by some leaders towards ordinary Kenyans. By implying that poverty disqualifies one from political ambition and associating success solely with personal wealth, Atwoli not only disregards the systemic issues that perpetuate poverty but also alienates a large portion of the population he claims to represent. His remarks sparked a wave of public backlash, with many declaring, "I am poor and I support Okiyah Omtatah for president," as a form of defiance and solidarity with leaders perceived as genuinely fighting for the people. Atwoli’s rhetoric underscores the growing divide between Kenya’s leadership and its citizens, amplifying calls for accountability and inclusive representation.

The president’s remark dismissing criticism of SHIF by implying men shouldn’t care about maternity coverage reflects ignorance and insensitivity. SHIF, meant to replace NHIF, promises universal coverage, including outpatient and inpatient care for all. However, widespread objections highlight its failure to deliver, with maternity services reportedly worse than before. His statement trivializes the broader impact of healthcare issues, ignoring that pregnancy affects families and society at large. Such rhetoric alienates critics instead of addressing legitimate concerns.

The president's speech after the June 25 protests frames peaceful protesters as "treasonous criminals," equating dissent with threats to national security. This narrative stigmatizes legitimate grievances, fostering fear and silencing opposition. By portraying protesters as orchestrators of violence and anarchy, the rhetoric justifies heavy-handed security measures, undermining the right to peaceful assembly. Such language escalates tension, delegitimizes civic participation, and erodes public trust in government commitment to democratic freedoms.

David Ndii’s dismissive remarks, labeling Kenyans on Twitter as “digital wankers,” fueled public outrage by trivializing their concerns and activism. This rhetoric not only alienated citizens but also amplified frustrations, contributing to the momentum of the largest protests ever seen. While his comments were not the sole cause, they underscored a disconnect between leadership and public sentiment, galvanizing people who felt dismissed and disrespected to take their grievances from digital spaces to the streets.