You watch a man’s critique bite back
You’re sitting there, listening to Mutua’s sharp assessment of Rigathi Gachagua. He tells you Gachagua lacks redemption, calls him among “the worst of elites” reuters.com+15x.com+15the-star.co.ke+15thestar.co.ke. He holds Gachagua’s past—impeachment, allegations of self-enrichment, ethnically divisive rhetoric—up for scrutiny. You nod, knowing Kenya watched with mix of shock and satisfaction when the National Assembly and Senate moved to remove him in October 2024 reuters.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1.
You recall Mutua’s own shifting stances
Then you realize: not long ago, Mutua himself led the charge against Ruto’s camp. He painted himself as Kenya’s moral compass. He condemned Ruto’s administration with vigor, urged morality, spoke of principles. You remember his prominent voice in Odinga’s 2022 strategy the-star.co.ke. Yet now, he seems content to stay silent about actions taken by Ruto’s inner circle—actions he once lambasted. You feel the contradiction settle in.
You sense hypocrisy in selective outrage
You sit up when you hear Mutua predict a coming clash between Gachagua and Kalonzo, accusing Gachagua of using alliances to further ambitions x.com+9tuko.co.ke+9nairobileo.co.ke+9. But hold on. You wonder: why rail against these alliances now, but remain silent when his former allies embraced power and alleged graft? Right now, Mutua has aligned himself with Ruto, and his critiques grow quieter. You sense a change from upright voice to political ally.
You feel the betrayal of moral standards
You reflect on what that alignment means. Mutua once opposed Ruto’s camp from moral high ground. His voice carried weight. Now, with Ruto’s government accused of looting, you hear little from him. That dissonance disturbs you. You realize moral credibility fades when criticism appears only safe or strategic. You’re left asking: why speak loudly against Gachagua but stay mute on equally troubling claims in Ruto’s circle?
You confront Mutua now aligned
You pay attention to Mutua’s denial of secret meetings with Gachagua thestar.co.ke+1the-star.co.ke+1. It’s a direct rebuttal to rumors—but you wonder why the denial matters so much. When rumors swirl about clandestine dealings with Kenya Kwanza, you expect transparency. Yet here comes a defensive posture. You ask yourself: is Mutua defending his integrity, or guarding a new political alliance? That defense risks looking like cover-up.
You see politics as survival, not principle
You sense how political allegiance shapes critique. Today’s moral outrage often bows to tomorrow’s power plays. Mutua’s transformation—from vocal critic of Ruto’s circle to advisor to the same—is not unusual in politics. But that pattern signals that his principles weren’t steadfast. You realize his sharp voice against Gachagua might just be a tactic to maintain relevance. In your view, he critiques not out of belief, but out of political expediency.
You question who really serves Kenya
You end by considering what Kenyans deserve. A leader speaks truth consistently, regardless of alliance. But Mutua’s selective voice argues otherwise. You want to trust the man who warned about power’s corrupting sway—but Mutua has given you reason to doubt. He’s thrown away moral insulation, seemingly content to feast now that he’s part of the gang. You wonder if Kenya can ever rely on such voices when survival dictates whom they criticize and whom they protect.
You’ve listened to a lecture that’s more confession than analysis. You weren’t led through a checklist. Instead, you sat across from a lecturer who told you how power seduces convictions, how moral voices get compromised, and how Kenyan public deserves better. You walked out unsettled—and that means you might just keep talking about it.
About The Author
