Ruto under scrutiny as Natembeya, Orengo lose security details

The withdrawal of security officers attached to senior government officials is a dangerous pattern whose consequences could be catastrophic and could plunge the country into chaos.

The withdrawal of security officers attached to Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya and Siaya Governor James Orengo has opened a troubling new front in President William Ruto’s confrontation with his critics, raising questions about whether state security is being deployed as a political weapon ahead of the 2027 General Election.

At the centre of the controversy is a question that goes beyond the two governors: Are decisions on the protection of political leaders being guided by professional security assessments, or are they becoming entangled in the struggle for political survival?

On Thursday, hours after reports emerged that Natembeya’s security detail had been withdrawn, Ruto issued a chilling warning to opposition leaders during his tour of Kabarnet, Baringo County, declaring: “Hawa watu tutawaonyesha kivumbi, safari hii watapata accident” — loosely translated as, “We will give these people a hard time; this time, they will have an accident.”

The latest developments have revived memories of August 1990, when a public warning by a Cabinet minister against a government critic was followed days later by the critic’s death in a road accident.

On August 12, 1990, then Labour Minister Peter Okondo warned Anglican Bishop Alexander Muge and fellow cleric Henry Okullu against visiting Busia, in western Kenya, during the one-party rule of President Daniel arap Moi.

Okondo’s warning was chilling: “They will see fire and may not leave alive,” he said of the two bishops if they defied his directive and entered the area.

Two days later, on August 14, 1990, Muge defied the warning and travelled to Busia despite the threat. On his return journey to Eldoret, his car collided with a lorry near Kipkaren in what was reported as a road accident. He died on impact.

The circumstances surrounding Muge’s death generated widespread suspicion, particularly because of the preceding threat. His death was never simply remembered as a road tragedy; it became a lasting symbol of the dangers faced by outspoken critics during Moi’s authoritarian era.

Okondo resigned from Cabinet on August 20, 1990, six days after the bishop’s death. The government agreed to a public inquest amid demands for an investigation.

Ruto’s callous remarks this week, followed by reports of the withdrawal of Orengo’s security detail on Friday, have heightened concerns among Kenyans over the safety of leaders who have emerged as vocal opponents of the administration.

Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has accused President William Ruto of using the police to intimidate political opponents, linking the withdrawal of security officers assigned to Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya to the governor’s declaration of support for his political ambitions ahead of the 2027 General Election.

Sifuna questioned the authority behind the decision, arguing that the Inspector-General of Police should operate independently and not be used by the President to target leaders opposed to his administration.

“We want constitutional governance. The Constitution says the Inspector General of Police should be independent and cannot be used by the sitting President to harass others,” Sifuna said.

He accused the President of disregarding the Constitution by withdrawing Natembeya’s security, questioning the authority on which he based the decision.

Sifuna urged Natembeya to remain steadfast, saying the governor enjoyed the support of wananchi and God despite the reported security changes.

“Natembeya is going through this because he has said he will support Sifuna in the 2027 elections,” he said.

While the President’s words do not, on their own, establish a connection between his remarks and the security decisions, their timing has intensified scrutiny of the government’s handling of the protection of its political adversaries.

The developments, coming amid increasingly combative rhetoric from the President against opposition leaders, have also revived painful memories of Kenya’s political past, when threats against government critics sometimes preceded deadly incidents.

Natembeya says the latest withdrawal occurred at about 11pm on Wednesday, October 14, just hours after Ruto concluded his tour of Trans Nzoia County. He maintained that the move was the second such incident and demanded a formal explanation from Inspector-General of Police Douglas Kanja.

“Any decision affecting my security must therefore comply with the applicable constitutional and legal requirements,” Natembeya said, adding that he was concerned about the repeated nature of the decision.

“I do not claim immunity from lawful security reviews. What I insist upon is that any such review must be conducted professionally, objectively and in accordance with the Constitution, without discrimination or improper political influence,” he said.

The governor’s complaint places the National Police Service at the centre of a dispute over whether the withdrawal was a legitimate security reassessment or an arbitrary administrative decision.

Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen defended the move, accusing Natembeya of associating with people he described as goons and planning violence.

“Political goonism must be finished. There are politicians who are enjoying the security provided by the government. They have police officers but still plan violence,” Murkomen said while accompanying Ruto during his tour of Elgeyo-Marakwet County.

“We have a governor here in neighbouring Trans Nzoia, who hangs around with goons and plans chaos,” he added.

Murkomen insisted that the government would not allow politicians to misuse state-provided protection to facilitate violence. However, in the remarks provided, he did not set out the specific security assessment or procedure that led to Natembeya’s officers being recalled.

Linda Mwananchi leaders have condemned the withdrawal of security officers assigned to Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya and Siaya Governor James Orengo, warning against the politicisation of leaders’ protection.

Speaking during the burial of SAIG Lazarus Opicho in Trans Nzoia County on Friday, the leaders called on President William Ruto and Inspector-General of Police Douglas Kanja to explain the decisions.

MP Majimbo Kalasinga questioned the circumstances surrounding security arrangements for opposition leaders, saying: “Everyone knows my face. Every police officer knows Sifuna’s face, yet when we came here, we were beaten by police all the way from there to here.”

Bumula MP Wamboka Wanami warned against using security as a political weapon, saying: “Do not use leaders’ security to play politics. Mr President, do not mess with Natembeya. We lost Jirongo under circumstances that remain unclear.”

Wamboka added that Kenyans had heard the President speak about accidents, remarks he appeared to link to concerns over the safety of political leaders.

Natembeya’s concerns are reinforced by a previous court intervention. In December 2025, the High Court ordered the reinstatement of security details withdrawn from Natembeya and Kakamega Senator Bonny Khalwale, pending the determination of a legal application.

The constitutional question is therefore whether the latest withdrawal followed a lawful and properly documented assessment, rather than whether a governor should be exempt from security reviews.

Article 244 of the Constitution requires the National Police Service to maintain high standards of professionalism and discipline while complying with constitutional standards on human rights. Article 47 also guarantees lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action.

Security analyst George Musamali says the repeated withdrawals raise questions about the independence and impartiality of the police.

“We should call to question the impartiality and independence of the police. Because this is their right as enshrined in the Constitution. It is covered in the Constitution that leaders are supposed to be provided with armed security,” he said.

Musamali acknowledged that there could be circumstances justifying the withdrawal of officers but said such decisions should be informed by a risk assessment.

“Normally what is done is risk analysis on a person before deployment and withdrawal. Was this done?” he posed.

He warned that the apparent politicisation of leaders’ security arrangements was dangerous, arguing that the public needed assurance that protection was being determined by professional considerations rather than political loyalties.

The National Police Service’s explanation, or lack of one, is therefore central to resolving the controversy. Without a transparent account of the reasons for the withdrawals, suspicion that state security is being used to punish dissent is likely to deepen.

The controversy widened on Friday when Orengo reported that his security detail had again been withdrawn shortly after he attended the first-anniversary memorial of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga in Bondo, Siaya County.

“Today, the government withdrew my security for the nth time. I remain unbowed,” Orengo said.

The Siaya governor had previously reported a similar incident on May 19, 2026, when he said his personal security officers and those guarding his Nairobi residence had been recalled without prior notice, formal communication or replacement arrangements.

He subsequently demanded an explanation from the Inspector-General.

Orengo linked the earlier withdrawal to his criticism of the broad-based government arrangement and his involvement in the Linda Mwananchi movement, which has emerged as a platform for opposition to Ruto’s administration.

The latest development is especially sensitive because Orengo is a veteran opposition figure whose political career spans decades of confrontation with successive administrations.

His position within the Linda Mwananchi faction has also placed him among those challenging the direction taken by sections of ODM.

The withdrawals involving Natembeya and Orengo are not isolated from the wider history of security disputes under Ruto’s administration.

In July 2023, security was withdrawn from prominent Azimio leaders, including Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka, as the opposition prepared anti-government protests.

Governors Gladys Wanga of Homa Bay, Orengo of Siaya, Anyang’ Nyong’o of Kisumu and Ochilo Ayacko of Migori were also among those who complained about the withdrawal of their security. The move reportedly affected at least 50 other elected opposition officials.

In October 2024, then Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua also said his security had been withdrawn, putting his safety at risk amid his fallout with Ruto.

These incidents have repeatedly placed the government on the defensive over its treatment of political figures whose relationships with the President have deteriorated.

In Natembeya’s case, the fact that his security had previously been withdrawn before the latest incident further complicates the government’s position. Orengo’s claim that his guards have been recalled repeatedly similarly raises questions about consistency and procedure.

For the opposition, the concern is not merely the loss of armed officers. It is the possibility that a leader could be left more vulnerable at a time when political tensions are rising and violence at public gatherings has become a recurring concern.

There is no established evidence linking Ruto’s remarks about an expected accident or the recent withdrawal of security officers to any plan to harm opposition leaders. Nor does the historical parallel with Bishop Muge’s death establish that the two situations are equivalent.

But the comparison is politically potent because it illustrates why threats from powerful officials, particularly when followed by developments that could expose their targets to danger, carry consequences beyond the immediate political exchange.

For security analyst Enock Makanga, the timing of the President’s remarks and the subsequent withdrawal of the governors’ guards is cause for concern.

“Is the President trying to intimidate the opposition? And we have seen it even previously in other regimes, where every time the regime wants to control the opposition, they withdraw their security,” he said.

Makanga described the withdrawal as wrong and unprofessional, arguing that security officers play a critical role in protecting public figures who may face threats because of their positions.

He warned that a leader moving without official protection could become vulnerable to attacks, particularly in a politically charged environment.

“The issue of just removing them is a question of now you move and then you hire goons to attack them. That's what normally happens,” he said, describing what he considers a danger associated with politically motivated security withdrawals.

His remarks are an assessment of the potential risks, not evidence that anyone has hired attackers or that an attack has been planned against either governor.

Makanga also argued that the withdrawals could have the opposite of their intended political effect by generating public sympathy for the affected leaders.

“I mean, in fact, it gives them an upper hand politically because now people have sympathy for these guys,” he said.

Ironically, Ruto himself experienced a security dispute during the administration of his predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, when he was Deputy President and his relationship with the President had deteriorated.

On August 26, 2021, the State withdrew the elite General Service Unit team guarding Ruto’s official and private residences, replacing the officers with Security of Government Buildings personnel from the Administration Police.

Ruto’s office protested the changes and sought an explanation from then Inspector-General of Police Hillary Mutyambai. The police, however, described the deployment as a normal procedure in the protection of very important persons.

During the 2022 presidential campaign, Ruto portrayed his treatment  by state agencies as political punishment. He argued that the withdrawal of police reservists in areas where he had political influence had been intended to undermine him.

“When we came to the handshake arrangement, a false narrative was rolled out that all the police reservists in Pokot and Baringo were a militia Ruto would use and all the reservists were withdrawn,” he said during a presidential debate in July 2022.

He argued that the withdrawal was meant to punish him politically.

The experience formed part of his broader criticism of the use of state institutions in political contests. He campaigned on the promise of a more professional, independent police service, pledging that officers should serve Kenyans fairly regardless of their political or ethnic affiliations.

After assuming office, Ruto told police commanders in November 2022: “We want the police to be professional, independent and accountable while protecting Kenyans.”

In January 2023, he went further, warning that without autonomy, the police service was vulnerable to “weaponisation, making it a threat to our security.”

Those declarations now provide a measure against which his administration’s conduct can be judged. The question is whether the principles he championed when he was on the receiving end of security decisions are being upheld now that he commands the state machinery.

The circumstances are not identical: Ruto’s guards were replaced rather than simply withdrawn, and the police said the change was procedural. But the episode illustrates the political sensitivity surrounding decisions on the protection of senior leaders.

Political analyst Martin Oloo believes the current confrontation reflects a President increasingly uncomfortable with the opposition taking shape ahead of the 2027 election.

“Obviously, we have seen that the President has gone off handle. He is making statements that could be said to be unpresidential. He's insulting his opponents,” Oloo said.

More significantly, he argued that the use of state power against critics would undermine their ability to exercise their political rights.

“He's making sure that he does not face credible and formidable opposition. The truth of the matter is that he's feeling the heat,” he said.

Oloo predicted that the administration could become more confrontational as political competition intensifies but warned that such a strategy could ultimately strengthen the opposition rather than weaken it.

“It could only solidify the opposition against him and maybe even work negatively against him,” he said.

He also drew parallels with the Moi era, citing the warning against Muge as a reminder of the potential consequences of threatening language from senior government officials.

Oloo urged opposition leaders to take their security seriously, cautioning that political hostility could expose them to danger.

Musamali, meanwhile, said the police must demonstrate that the withdrawals were based on genuine security assessments rather than political considerations.

“We should not interpret what the President said about an accident because we may get that interpretation wrong. Maybe he meant something else,” he said.

His caution offers an important distinction in the debate: the President’s words should not automatically be interpreted as a threat to cause physical harm, but the police must still account for decisions that leave senior political figures without their usual protection.

The question is whether the government can demonstrate that its actions are consistent with the professional standards it has publicly promised to uphold.