In a recent editorial, the Nation newspaper made a number of self-defeating claims that we hereby debunk. The article demonstrated that the author either lacks in logical reasoning or is willfully misguiding readers. One of the article’s submissions was that since the Deputy President, by virtue of his office, is “part of the decision-making process,” he is obliged to abide by government’s decisions. The author conveniently overlooks an important fact in taking this position—If the DP is being sidestepped in decision-making as is now clear, how would he be expected to abide by those decisions? If the article premises the assertion that Ruto ought to follow government decisions on the fact that he is part of the decision-making process, oughtn’t the author consider whether what is expected in that process is actually happening?

The editorial’s choice to be blind about the cause of the bad blood between the president and his deputy is evident in the article’s lamentation that because the President and his Deputy are “joined at the hip,” it is impossible for Uhuru to get rid of Ruto unless the latter resigns. If the author’s call for the DP’s resignation came from a genuine patriotic conviction, he/she would not only look at what the DP is doing wrong but what the cause of his rebellious behavior is as well. In penning such an article, it behooves one to question whether the president regards his deputy and his government in the manner that the author passionately feels the DP should regard the aforementioned.

I find the claim that “ordinary citizens” are befuddled by the DP’s complaints disingenuous. On what grounds does the author base this assertion? If anyone is nonplussed by the said remarks, it would either be because they don’t reside in Kenya or because they do not follow Kenya’s political affairs. But it is expected that someone in charge of a daily newspaper’s editorial not only resides in the country but also follows our politics closely. If the author knows something “ordinary citizens” do not, why doesn’t he/she let us in on it rather than baselessly purport to speak on behalf of Kenyans?

For a daily national newspaper with Nation’s authority and reputation, the editorial’s assertions are unfathomably erroneous, and expose a rather belligerent attitude towards the Deputy President that leaves anyone with a keen political eye in wonder. Their contention that public officers “in civilized jurisdictions” quit when they are unable to agree and coexist is one such specious claim. With this statement, the author insinuates that Kenya is not such a jurisdiction (we have never seen anyone take the said steps for the said reasons), which makes his/her demand for the DP to quit illogical. It is ironic that he/she calls Ruto’s continued stay in government hypocritical when their claims stink of Pharisaism!

For all his/her calculated fallacious inferences, the author gets one thing correct. That there is something terribly wrong with our government. Unfortunately, their choice for where to place the blame, like all their other delusive propositions and subsequent deductions, is misplaced. Anyone who has been keen since the formation of Jubilee will tell you that the president’s support for his deputy has waned considerably in recent years. Since securing a second term as president, Kenyatta, who in previous occasions repeatedly promised his adamant and unwavering support for Ruto, has developed cold feet. Isn’t Ruto justified then in seeking to galvanize his political persuasion in the country without considering the president’s agenda? The trouble in the ruling party is the president’s doing. Ruto and indeed all other politicians should not pay the price. The fact that the author’s thoughts differ raises keen readers’ eyebrows. Is this editorial an indication of the side of Nation’s bread that is battered? It certainly cannot be that the author believes in what he/she is advocating for. Neither Ruto nor any Kenyan should pay attention to the editorial, therefore!