Is Uhuru really the sponsor behind Ruto's opposition?

Former President Uhuru Kenyatta has once again found himself at the centre of Kenya’s political conversation, despite largely keeping away from active electoral politics.

President William Ruto and his allies have repeatedly accused the retired president of sponsoring politicians and political movements opposed to the Kenya Kwanza administration ahead of 2027 elections.

Among those repeatedly mentioned is Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna, whom Ruto has portrayed as one of the opposition figures benefiting from Uhuru’s alleged political and financial support. Sifuna has rejected the allegations and challenged the President to provide evidence, maintaining that his political activities are funded by supporters.

The allegations have nevertheless revived an old political question: what role, if any, is Uhuru playing in the emerging opposition politics and does he genuinely want to see Ruto removed from power?

A video circulating online has also added fuel to the debate, with Uhuru appearing to respond jokingly to the “sponsor” label. But beyond such political banter, there is still no independently verified evidence establishing that Uhuru is financially sponsoring Sifuna or coordinating opposition campaigns.

The most interesting element of the controversy, therefore, may not be the accusation itself but Uhuru’s relative silence. Ruto has repeatedly invoked his predecessor while attacking the opposition, yet Uhuru has generally avoided responding with an equally aggressive political campaign.

If the former president were actively directing an operation  to remove Ruto, one might expect clearer public evidence of such involvement: an explicit endorsement, major opposition appearances or sustained mobilisation of his political networks. That has not happened. This does not prove that Uhuru supports Ruto, nor does it establish that he is secretly working with the government. It simply complicates the argument that he is currently organising the opposition from behind the scenes.

The political history between the two men explains why the allegations carry such weight. Ruto and Uhuru came to power together under the Jubilee coalition in 2013 and secured a second term in 2017. Their relationship subsequently deteriorated following the 2018 handshake between Uhuru and opposition leader Raila Odinga.

By the 2022 election, the political partnership had effectively collapsed. Uhuru openly backed Raila’s presidential bid and urged his Mt Kenya supporters to support the former opposition leader. Ruto, meanwhile, built much of his campaign around the argument that the political establishment represented by Uhuru and Raila was attempting to block his presidential ambitions.

Raila ultimately lost the election to Ruto, but the episode demonstrated that Uhuru could still influence political alignments even after leaving State House. Four years later, the repeated invocation of Uhuru’s name raises another question: is the President reviving a political narrative that served him during the 2022 campaign?

In politics, identifying a powerful antagonist can provide a simple explanation for otherwise complicated political developments. Opposition activity can be presented not as a collection of independent grievances, personalities and ambitions, but as the work of a powerful figure operating behind the scenes. Uhuru occupied that position in much of Ruto’s 2022 political narrative. He could now be assuming a similar symbolic role in the run-up to 2027.

But there is an important difference between political influence and political control. Uhuru unquestionably retains political relevance.

His presidency, former Jubilee networks, relationship with Raila and the alliances developed during the handshake period give him a political history that few former presidents can easily shed. That, however, is different from establishing that he is financing or directing today’s opposition.

There is also a more complicated possibility. If Uhuru were to support politicians opposed to Ruto, his objective would not necessarily have to be limited to removing the President in 2027. Political alliances can serve longer-term interests, potentially reshaping relationships between Mount Kenya, western Kenya, Nairobi, the Coast and other political constituencies.

Commentators have therefore speculated about whether Uhuru could eventually support a new political generation or play a role in determining who emerges from the opposition camp. But speculation about a succession strategy remains just that unless supported by evidence.

The same caution applies to theories suggesting that Uhuru and Ruto could ultimately have converging interests because of decisions made during the former president’s administration. Kenya’s political class has frequently been accused of pursuing continuity and protecting political or economic interests across successive administrations. But such arguments cannot, by themselves, establish the existence of a secret agreement between Uhuru and Ruto.

For now, the public record contains accusations, denials and political interpretations, not conclusive evidence of a covert Uhuru-backed operation. What remains undeniable is that Uhuru’s intervention could significantly change the political conversation if he chooses to make one.

An explicit endorsement of an opposition candidate, a major rally appearance or a sustained campaign against Ruto would provide much clearer evidence of where the former president stands. Conversely, continued political restraint would leave the “sponsor” allegations dependent largely on claims made by his opponents and speculation among political commentators.

For the opposition, therefore, assuming that Uhuru will eventually enter the political battlefield on its behalf carries its own risks. Political movements ultimately have to demonstrate their own organisational strength, financing structures and public support. For the government, however, repeatedly presenting Uhuru as the hidden hand behind opposition activity raises a corresponding question: where is the evidence?

The former president’s political future may ultimately be determined not by what others say about him, but by what he chooses to do. For now, Uhuru remains a politically consequential figure who has largely stayed on the sidelines while his name continues to dominate Kenya’s political debate.

-The writer is a political analyst