Mr President, answer Sifuna's argument without insults

A president who dismisses an opponent as empty should welcome the opportunity to expose that emptiness through argument. He should examine the proposals, identify their weaknesses and explain why his own programme serves citizens better.

When he reaches instead for personal insults, he leaves an uncomfortable impression: perhaps the questions are harder to answer than the questioner is to ridicule. That is the danger for President William Ruto in his exchanges with Edwin Sifuna.

The senator has proposed scrapping the housing levy, reducing taxes and cutting government waste. Ruto has questioned his capacity and accused him of extortion. These are reported political exchanges, and theatrical dialogue circulating online should not be mistaken for a verified transcript.

The country deserves a contest over public power, public money, and human dignity, not a competition to invent humiliating nicknames. Sifuna has placed proposals before Kenyans. Their existence does not prove they are affordable or sufficient, but it makes it hard to sustain the claim that he has no agenda. The President should examine their merits.

Consider housing. Ruto argues that his programme creates jobs and improves living conditions in informal settlements. Those are legitimate objectives. Equally legitimate are questions about the levy, project locations and whether the houses suit the people expected to occupy them. Construction alone cannot establish value for contributors or residents. Contributors deserve to know the cost per unit, eligibility criteria, financing arrangements and whether promised homes reach the households for whom they were designed.

An apartment block may suit one community and fail another. Good planning considers income, livelihoods, transport, water, sanitation, schools and healthcare. Rural families should receive housing solutions appropriate to their circumstances, although keeping livestock does not automatically make apartments unsuitable. Evidence and consultation must guide decisions.

The fiscal argument requires similar seriousness. Sifuna says advisers believe Kenya can balance its budget within fifteen months while cutting taxes. That is ambitious. Which spending will end? Which commitments will remain? How will debt obligations be met and essential services protected? Kenyans deserve figures, not slogans.

Waste exists, but eliminating it takes more than promising efficiency. Some savings demand procurement reform, others legislation or difficult decisions on staffing, contracts and subsidies. Sifuna should publish a costed programme. Ruto should answer with his own numbers. Neither applause nor insults can balance a budget.

Healthcare provides another test. Enrolment figures show how many people register, but they cannot show whether patients receive timely treatment, medicines remain available, or hospitals are paid promptly.

At the bedside, pharmacy counter, and cashier’s window, citizens judge reform by whether they can treat illness without financial ruin. Publish hospital payment data, claim rejection rates and evidence of actual treatment so patients can distinguish functioning services from impressive registration totals. A confident government should welcome that scrutiny.

Development must also be judged against safety and freedom. Albert Ojwang’s death in police custody, followed by murder charges against police officers and civilians, demonstrates why accountability cannot be dismissed as a distraction from infrastructure. Courts must establish criminal responsibility through evidence. Political anger does not justify claiming without proof that Ruto personally ordered a killing.

Nevertheless, the administration remains responsible for protecting rights, supporting independent investigations and preventing abuse. A road cannot compensate a family for unlawful death. A stadium cannot replace justice. Development exists to improve human lives, not to excuse injuries inflicted upon them.

The President’s allegations of extortion against Sifuna also deserve lawful scrutiny. If evidence exists, place it before investigators. Protect complainants and respect the accused person’s right to due process. Repeating accusations at rallies neither establishes guilt nor cleanses public institutions. Presidential authority should reinforce accountability, not turn possible crimes into campaign entertainment.

Invoking Uhuru Kenyatta also cannot answer a policy argument. Whatever political relationships Sifuna may have, people must assess his ideas on their merits. Housing affordability, healthcare quality and fair taxation do not depend on who finances a microphone.

Sifuna, for his part, should not confuse presidential attention or viral clips with public endorsement. Visibility is no substitute for workable legislation, institutional competence and disciplined choices. He should keep publishing proposals, accept criticism, and explain precisely how they would be implemented. That would make evasion harder.

Ruto bears the greater burden because he holds executive authority. He can shape budgets, direct policy and demonstrate results. Kenyans deserve answers about these decisions without being ridiculed for asking. They also deserve an opposition prepared to subject its alternatives to the same examination.

The country needs public services that work, not a winner in a quarrel. A presidency diminishes itself when it treats accountability as an insult and answers with insults.