Ruth Odinga’s remarks have opened a storm that goes beyond family disagreements and political drama. Her bold criticism of Raila Odinga’s move to shield Johnson Sakaja from impeachment has raised serious questions about leadership, accountability, and the future of devolution.
Many Kenyans were caught off guard by her words, but the message she sent was clear. She believes that Raila, by intervening, weakened the oversight role of MCAs and denied Nairobi residents justice.
For a long time, Ruth has been known to stand her ground, and this time she chose to openly confront what she saw as betrayal of the Constitution.
Speaking during a press briefing, Ruth did not hold back. She said that MCAs of Nairobi had already declared they had no confidence in Sakaja and that their position should have been respected.
According to her, nothing should have stopped them from pursuing impeachment since that was the proper constitutional path.
She went on to explain that blocking the process was disappointing because it stripped Nairobi residents of the only avenue they had to hold their governor accountable. To her, impeachment was not about politics but about ensuring leaders serve the people faithfully.
The debate surrounding Sakaja’s leadership has been alive for months. Residents have been complaining about delays in bursary payments, collapse of the Ward Development Fund, and lack of attention to community needs.
Many MCAs echoed these frustrations, accusing Sakaja of ignoring ward priorities and failing to deliver on his promises.
With more than 70 signatures collected out of the 82 required, the impeachment motion was almost ready.
However, the process crumbled after Raila and President William Ruto intervened separately, each meeting with their party MCAs and urging them to hold back.
Reports said Raila convinced ODM MCAs to give Sakaja a month to correct his mistakes while Ruto warned UDA MCAs against going forward with the motion.Ruth Odinga was not pleased by this political maneuvering.
She insisted that the MCAs betrayed Nairobians by shelving the impeachment despite having valid complaints. In her view, they surrendered to political pressure instead of standing firm in their oversight role.
She warned that such actions undermine devolution and embolden governors to ignore accountability since they know political deals can rescue them.
She described impeachment as a constitutional safeguard, not a weapon, and argued that leaders should never be shielded from scrutiny when there are genuine grievances.
The bigger picture of her criticism also touches on Raila’s image.
Ruth’s comments have given critics a reason to argue that Raila prioritised political convenience over the interests of Nairobi residents. By siding with Sakaja, he may have avoided immediate political turmoil, but the complaints of the people remain unresolved.
Even after being saved from removal, Sakaja still faces pressure. Residents continue demanding bursaries, development funds, and delivery of campaign promises.
Ruth’s words have reminded Nairobians that the fight is not yet over. If Sakaja fails to make real changes in the coming weeks, the calls for impeachment could return, this time with stronger voices and more determined backing.
The controversy shows how fragile the balance between politics and accountability remains in Kenya’s devolved system, and it leaves Nairobians waiting to see whether their governor will finally rise to the occasion or sink further into criticism.
