Why Uhuru owes us restraint while opposing Ruto's politics

 Former President Uhuru Kenyatta. [File, Standard]

As Kenyan political traditions, the graceful exit has always been held as sacred as the turbulent ascent. From the retirement of Mwai Kibaki to the quiet exit of Daniel Arap Moi, former heads of state have historically adhered to an unwritten code: once you leave State House, you leave the knives behind.

That gentleman’s agreement was spectacularly shattered two weeks ago when former President Uhuru Kenyatta launched a sustained and unprecedented attack on his successor, Dr William Ruto, accusing the current administration of dismantling his legacy and running “untried and untested” economic experiments that are causing Kenyans to “continue to suffer”. The broadside was not a subtle prod but a full-throated denunciation.

Mr Kenyatta lamented the erosion of his signature programmes, including the ‘Linda Mama’ maternal health initiative, and suggested that the warning he issued to the nation in 2022 was “lost in the noise of insults, myths and stories of dynasties and hustlers.”

It was a direct hit at the populist message that carried Dr Ruto to power. To understand the vitriol, one must understand the history. The Kenyatta-Ruto relationship is arguably the most toxic divorce in Kenya’s political history. Once co-accused at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and dubbed the “dynamic duo,” their partnership ruptured spectacularly after the 2017 “handshake” between Uhuru and opposition leader Raila Odinga.

By the time of the 2022 election, Uhuru was actively campaigning against his own deputy, endorsing Mr Odinga instead.

Dr Ruto won anyway, emphatically endorsed by voters from Uhuru’s backyard, a not subtle rejection of the former President that must still sting. In the immediate aftermath, there was a fragile peace.

Dr Ruto appointed his predecessor as peace envoy for the Great Lakes region and spoke of “appreciation for Uhuru’s statesmanship”.

However, that ceasefire appears to have collapsed as the 2027 General Election looms. The breakdown of decorum is raising concerns among watchers of Kenya’s fragile democracy.

Traditionally, retired presidents have served as elder statesmen. While he was alive, Kibaki remained famously silent on affairs of the Uhuru Kenyatta government.

Similarly, the late President Moi largely refrained from direct attacks on his successors, focusing instead on his philanthropy. But the current climate has turned vitriolic. Just weeks before Uhuru’s speech, leaders allied to President Ruto, led by Nandi Senator Samson Cherargei, were agitating to review and potentially revoke Uhuru’s retirement benefits—including his pension and security—accusing him of “still actively engaging in politics”.

Opposition figures have slammed this tit-for-tat as reckless. In his speech, Uhuru defended his economic record, suggesting the current pain felt by Kenyans is the result of untested policies. However, critics were quick to point out the irony of the former president lecturing on fiscal prudence.

Many analysts contend that Uhuru has no moral authority to lecture Dr Ruto, citing the ballooning of Kenya’s debt-to-GDP ratio from 50 per cent to nearly 70 per cent under his watch, a situation that almost resulted in debt default by the time of Dr Ruto’s takeover.  

Others cite the numerous corruption scandals that stained his administration, including KEMSA and the gross price-gouging of public works projects like the SGR and Nairobi Expressway, a burden which current government continues to carry.

It is this recognition of their own defaults that keeps predecessors politely quiet about their successors. For the average voter watching this political elite fallout, the concern is not who is right, but what this means for the country.

The hostility breaks a tradition of statesmanship that has helped Kenya avoid the political instability seen elsewhere on the continent. Former presidents still retain both soft and hard power and active contestation between them and their successors can cause significant destabilisation. Wisdom demands restraint on the part of the former President, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and political rights notwithstanding.

It does not bode well to get back into political mudslinging after one had the privilege to lead the country for a decade. Political operatives on the government side however also need restraint in their attacks on the former President.

The country badly needs elder statesmen and women and there can be no better statesman than a former President, more so one who stays as far as practicable from partisan politics.

-The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya