Brothers at War - The Unfinished Business Between Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.
The relationship between President William Ruto and his predecessor Uhuru Kenyatta is not merely a political disagreement. It is one of the most consequential ruptures in Kenya’s modern political history; a fallout rooted in loyalty, succession, power design, and legacy.
“Reconciliation in public, rivalry in shadow.”Their alliance did not begin in 2013. Ruto stood with Uhuru as early as
2002 when Uhuru made his first presidential attempt. That early loyalty forged
political trust that deepened during the turbulent post-2007 period. By the
time both men faced charges at the International Criminal Court, their
partnership had evolved from convenience into survival. The 2013 election was
not just a campaign; it was a joint resistance project. They won. In 2017,
after the Supreme Court nullified the first presidential poll, Ruto played a
central role in securing Uhuru’s re-election in the repeat vote. Uhuru’s famous
declaration “Yangu kumi, na ya Ruto
kumi” was interpreted as a solemn succession covenant.
Yet within a year, the covenant fractured.
The 2018 Handshake between Uhuru and Raila Odinga fundamentally altered
the political architecture. Ruto read it as betrayal. Uhuru framed it as
national stabilization after a divisive election cycle. From that point
forward, the presidency and deputy presidency functioned as parallel political
centres. The 2022 succession was no longer procedural; it became existential.
The Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) emerged from that Handshake.
Publicly, it was an inclusivity project designed to end cyclical post-election
instability. Politically, it proposed diluting the concentration of executive
power through the introduction of a Prime Minister and an expanded executive
structure. It was not a crude imitation of Vladimir Putin’s power rotation
model. There was no explicit pathway for Uhuru to retain office after 2022. But
BBI would have fundamentally altered the post-Uhuru power equation. It would
have ensured that no single successor, particularly one he no longer trusted;would
wield unchecked authority.
BBI was succession insurance.
When the courts invalidated it, culminating in the Supreme Court
decision, Uhuru lost structural leverage. The 2022 contest reverted to a binary
presidential race. In binary contests, victory is absolute. Ruto won
completely.
That outcome reshaped everything. The former president suddenly
confronted a successor with full constitutional power, deep grassroots
networks, and an independent political machine built through the United
Democratic Alliance. Uhuru seeks to limit Ruto to one term, the motivation
likely lies less in wounded pride and more in legacy preservation and political
equilibrium. Leaders do not easily accept the dismantling of their policy
architecture, networks, or historical narrative. Ruto’s consolidation of Mt.
Kenya; Uhuru’s traditional stronghold intensified the personal and structural
stakes.
Reports that Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed facilitated quiet
discussions in Addis Ababa were therefore not trivial diplomatic gossip. When a
regional leader steps in, it signals that elite conflict has implications
beyond domestic theatre. Kenya anchors East Africa’s economic and security
architecture. A sustained feud between a sitting president and his predecessor
introduces uncertainty. Arbitration can create détente. It cannot manufacture
trust.
Ruto’s visit to Ichaweri, goats in tow, was a masterclass in symbolism.
In African political culture, livestock is not casual gifting; it is coded
reconciliation. The State House press communication projected warmth, nation-building,
and forward focus. Yet the communication from the Office of the Fourth
President was restrained and notably devoid of overt cordiality. In politics,
tone is substance. The asymmetry suggested coexistence, not reunion.
The subsequent appointment of figures historically aligned with Uhuru,
including William Kabogo, Lee Kinyanjui and Mutahi Kagwe to cabinet positions
and Nderitu Mureithi as the chairman of Kenya Revenue Authority Board can be
interpreted in two ways. They may represent genuine olive branches. They may
equally represent strategic absorption of rival networks. Ruto’s political
method has consistently involved weakening opposition structures by integrating
key actors into his orbit. Consolidation often wears the mask of
reconciliation.
Immediately after the Ichaweri encounter, Uhuru publicly urged Gen Z to
claim their space in national leadership. Timing in politics is rarely
accidental. It was a generational signal. Whether it was a statesman’s advice
or a coded invitation to a future anti-incumbent realignment depends on
perspective. But it reinforced one fact: Uhuru has not exited the arena.
Meanwhile, the opposition landscape remains fragmented. Elements of ODM
are cooperating with government under a broad-based arrangement. Without a
single credible flag bearer commanding cross-regional arithmetic, the path to
unseating an incumbent who is visibly rolling out development projects becomes
steep. Making a Kenyan president one term is historically rare and structurally
difficult. It requires unity, economic discontent at scale, disciplined
coalition management, and early clarity of leadership.
So who is fooling who?
Ruto’s gestures are strategic. Uhuru’s restructuring is strategic.
Public reconciliations and cold silences alike are instruments of positioning.
This is not an emotional feud. It is a contest over narrative control, legacy
preservation, regional influence, and the design of Kenya’s future executive
power.
The deeper question is not whether Uhuru would prefer Ruto to serve only
one term. The deeper question is whether he can assemble and discipline a
coalition capable of overcoming incumbency advantage in a country where power,
once consolidated, is rarely surrendered easily.
Politics, especially at this level, is not about friendship. It is about
architecture.
And 2027 will test whose architecture is stronger.
Innocent Musumbi

Comments
Post a Comment