Kenya’s embattled Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, calls himself the “truthful man”, attributing his remarkable rise to the fact that he speaks truth to power.
But as he faces impeachment proceedings, he says these troubles are also a result of his outspoken nature.
Before he was elected MP in 2017, little was known about the man who would, in five short years, rise to become Kenya’s second-in-command.
Not many people outside Gachagua’s central Kenya constituency had heard of him or his style of politics.
Gachagua captured the limelight in the run-up to the 2022 elections, when he vehemently opposed President Uhuru Kenyatta’s choice of preferred successor.
Advertisement
Kenyatta was campaigning heavily for former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
But Gachagua allied himself with William Ruto, Kenyatta’s then deputy, who was angling for the presidency that his boss did not want to bequeath to him.
At political rallies and in media circles, Gachagua railed against Kenyatta, often in words that other politicians would find cringeworthy.
To this day, no one has been found guilty of Kariuki’s death.
Before he became Kenya’s deputy president, police raided Gachagua’s home and arrested him in relation to a corruption and money-laundering case. The charges were dropped after he and Ruto took power following the 2022 election.
He had helped Ruto win by marshalling support in Mount Kenya – the biggest voting bloc in the country. Both Gachagua and Kenyatta come from there. Kenyatta had tried to rally Mount Kenya’s voters to throw their weight behind Odinga, but he failed.
Getty Images
Rigathi Gachagua was sworn in as the deputy president just over two years ago
Long before Kenyatta became president in 2013, Gachagua had worked closely with him, including as his personal assistant for five years.
Advertisement
But after teaming up with Ruto, Gachagua went from being Kenyatta’s “confidant” to one of his harshest critics.
However, since falling out with his current boss, Gachagua has apologised to Kenyatta, saying it was “foolish” of him to have “fought my own brother”.
This humility is in sharp contrast to his rhetoric as Ruto’s running-mate – analyst Javas Bigamo had even described Gachagua as a “feared political bulldog that Ruto needed to be able to counter President Kenyatta in the central region”.
Gachagua was praised as an excellent mobiliser, who had the ear of ordinary people on the ground.
Advertisement
Yet he was probably not the person many expected to take the deputy position, given that Gachagua had only being a politician for five years and was up against more seasoned candidates.
Ruto explained he had chosen Gachagua because “he is one of those leaders who are passionate about ordinary people”.
Politics expert Bobby Mkangi previously told the BBC that Gachagua’s ability to negotiate his way to the top “considering other names that were fronted and were known nationally” was “quite something”.
But just two years after ascending to power, that ability seems to have fizzled out – leaving Gachagua butting heads with the president and in a position where many legislators are pushing for his removal.
Advertisement
He stands accused of corruption, money-laundering, gross misconduct, insubordination and bullying public officers and six other acts of wrongdoing.
As the motion was being tabled in parliament on Tuesday, the MP introducing the motion, Mwengi Mutuse, said that 291 out of 349 MPs had signed the document pushing for Gachagua’s removal.
The signatures of two-thirds – or 233 – of all MPs are required to impeach him.
Mkangi now says the deputy president has been “unable to consolidate the support of his base and the politicians around him”.
Advertisement
Getty Images
Gachagua was accused of being brash when campaigning to become Kenya’s deputy president in 2022
Gachagua has always been accused of being brash and aggressive – it was one of the reasons some argued against his selection to the running mate position prior to the 2022 election. But in recent months, this criticism has increased.
He denies this assessment of his character, along with assertions that he alienates his fellow politicians.
He says all he does is “speak the truth”, which he insists has made him unpopular within certain political factions.
“I will not compromise my principles,” he said over the weekend as calls for his impeachment came to a crescendo.
Advertisement
Gachagua has often identified himself as a child of the Mau Mau freedom fighters, who battled British colonial rule.
He was born in 1965 to parents who he has said were well known for their involvement in the struggle for freedom. His father built and serviced guns and his mother was a courier of ammunition and food for the fighters, Gachagua said.
His lineage has painted him as a champion of people in central Kenya, many of whom are descendants of independence struggle icons, but still continue to fight for economic freedom.
A popular catchphrase associated with the deputy president is “don’t touch the mountain”, a reference to his support base in the Mount Kenya region. However, he has also been accused of promoting tribalism rather than being a unifying figure.
Advertisement
But Gachagua has defended himself, insisting that speaking for the central Kenya region is not the same as antagonising other communities.
Before joining politics, Gachagua had had a long career.
After completing university, he began working as a public administrator in government, and as a district officer in different locations across the country.
The district administrators of that time, during Daniel arap Moi’s presidency, were known for their high-handedness. It is an accusation that has stuck with him, including in present circumstances.
Advertisement
He worked as Kenyatta’s personal assistant between 2001 and 2006 – at a time when Kenyatta was a minister, presidential candidate and later the leader of the opposition.
Gachagua is a wealthy politician, having built a fortune in business over the years. He is married to a pastor, Dorcas, and they have two adult sons.
In 2017, he vied for the Mathira constituency seat, winning the position that had earlier been held by his elder brother, Nderitu Gachagua.
It is at this time that Gachagua’s fiery character and political abilities started attracting attention.
Advertisement
Yet his public utterances, before and since he became deputy president, have at times been seen as blunders or straight-up disgraceful comments.
He said last year that government was like a shareholding company, with those that voted for the current administration being more deserving of government appointments and contracts.
Senator Danson Mungatana last week said Gachagua’s words have “marginalised sections of Kenyans, created and continue to heighten ethnic tensions”.
Gachagua has often defended himself, but recently he acknowledged that in the end, it may be the very same thing that catapulted him to the top that will lead to his downfall: his way with words.
EMIRATES — This was supposed to be one of the hard ones for Arsenal.
In the revamped Champions League, where the Swiss model of randomised fixtures promises to make games more competitive than ever before, Paris Saint-Germain represented a real test of how far the Gunners have come after two years of title-chasing in the Premier League.
If ever there was a moment that it felt like they were not only vying ambitiously for a seat back at the top table of European football, but sitting firmly in place, it was this result.
Advertisement
PSG were unbeaten on arrival at the Emirates in a run that included six wins and one draw – with an average of three goals scored per game. They were two down in north London in 35 minutes.
Read Next
Arsenal looked organised, composed, possessing almost an inner self-belief that the result was assured provided they stuck to another of Mikel Arteta’s game plans. They were aggressive off the ball, incisive on it.
The silky slick move on in the 51st minute, a combination of clipped passes keeping the ball in the air that ended with Kai Havertz teeing the ball up for Gabriel Martinelli to volley goalwards, was not only deserving of a goal – it produced a fine save – but was indicative of a side in total control of their senses.
Bukayo Saka had fans on their feet after nine minutes, leaving their seats as he cut inside in what has become a trademark move, straining for a better a look as he curled the ball towards the far corner and narrowly missed the post.
Advertisement
They scored the opening goal on 20 minutes. Havertz and Leandro Trossard played as revolving centre-forwards, one dropping back, the other further forward, confusing the PSG centre-backs, Marquinhos and Willian Pacho.
The Arsenal pair combined for the goal: Trossard deeper this time, cutting inside and sending a delightful in-swinging cross into the area of nightmares for goalkeepers. Should they come? Should they wait?
The last thing a goalkeeper wants in that area is a six-foot-two forward but in galloped Havertz between the centre-backs, beating Gianluigi Donnarumma’s fist to the ball and cushioning the ball around the Italian with his head.
PSG, for their part, reminded Arsenal they were still there. Nuno Mendes hit the post and when Achraf Hakimi was slipped in behind Riccardo Calafiori the Italian struggled to catch up but David Raya saved with his legs.
Advertisement
Read Next
But with the home crowd going a little flat, Gabriel strongly held off Warren Zaire-Emery to earn a goal kick and spark a rise back out of them, and the second goal followed two minutes later.
From a free-kick wide on the right, Saka sent in a hopeful low in-swinging ball, finding another of those devilish areas. Three Arsenal players missed it, but so did Donnarumma, who could only flap his hands as the ball bounced him and in.
Another nightmare delivery on a nightmare of a night for the PSG goalkeeper.
And the thing is, Arsenal are probably about to get better. With Martin Odegaard out since the international break and Mikel Merino out with an injured shoulder since signing for £27.4m from Real Sociedad, they have been missing two of three key central midfielders. Merino came on in the second half, easing back in.
Advertisement
Even without them there is such a strong core to this side. If teams get through Declan Rice, which rarely happens, they hit a brick wall of William Saliba and Gabriel. If that fails, which it rarely does, Raya is fast becoming the finest goalkeeper in the game.
The comparison that your FT Money columnist Moira O’Neill draws between the Mafia “pizzu” and tax is inappropriate and wrong (“Should you ‘fill to the max’ on tax-free allowances?”, Opinion, FT Money, FT Weekend, September 21).
Pizzu is an illegal payment extracted by organised crime groups, through threats of violence or intimidation, in exchange for “protection”. Taxation, on the other hand, is at the core of the social contract between the state and its citizens and is based on governance and accountability.
In modern democracies, taxes are legally enforced contributions to fund public services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, defence and social welfare. Transparency and accountability mechanisms exist to prevent misuse of tax revenues.
The level of taxation — and public expenditure — depends on voters’ preferences, and tax rates and spending are typically decided by elected representatives. Citizens can vote, engage in protest, or influence policy to change how taxes are levied or spent.
Advertisement
Some societies may prefer, for instance, to restrict the range of public services in exchange for a lower level of taxation and let services such as healthcare to be mostly privately funded.
Modern democracies began with the citizens’ demand to have a say on how much they pay and to no longer be burdened with taxes decided elsewhere — no more taxation without representation.
Taxes are often perceived as unfair, but drawing a comparison with the pizzu confuses purposes, context and legality — or lack of it. Above all, it overlooks the fundamental role of democracy, governance, law, and the provision of public services and collective goods that taxes support.
Paola Subacchi Professor of Economics, Sciences Po, Paris and Essential Economics, London W1, UK
Just a small feedback on Janan Ganesh’s piece on “The end of the popular politician” (Opinion, September 26).
It may well be that a spoilt vote reflects a general dissatisfaction with politicians. But I would rather say that voters can’t be fooled so easily any more. The requirements of a politician have not changed much for at least half a century. Almost by definition, politicians of western democracies are amateurs. Even worse, politicians refuse to raise the standards of their profession.
Singapore is a pretty good example of how professional politicians can do a much better job than their western “amateur” counterparts. Or let me use a word from my German mother tongue — Fachidiot — which means a one-track specialised idiot, who is an expert in his or her field but takes a blinkered approach to multi-faceted problems, what you might call an expert idiot. That describes our politicians.
What the west needs is minimum standards for politicians, which are generally accepted for the profession. When an employer searches for a medical doctor, why would we look for qualifications fitting a carpenter?
Advertisement
We demand licences for drivers, lawyers, doctors and many other professions. By contrast, any idiot can be a politician!
A fact-checking flashpoint that spiraled into a full-on mic cut at the vice presidential debate set right-wing tempers ablaze on Tuesday night, with MAGA World denizens tweeting out their gormless outrage that CBS News had had the nerve to silence J.D. Vance.
Advertisement
After moderator Margaret Brennan offered Vance, who’d been speaking about illegal immigration, a correction that a large swath of the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio was in the country legally, Vance talked over her.
As the Republican nominee tried to get into the minutiae of the documentation required to come into the United States, the network cut off both candidates’ microphones.
“Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics have been cut,” Brennan said, smiling tightly. “Thank you for explaining the legal process.”
Vance seemed miffed, scoffing that “the rules were you guys weren’t going to fact-check.” (CBS set a ground rule that the mics would be cut should the crosstalk grow too heated.)
Advertisement
But that was nothing compared to the nuclear meltdown that had already been triggered online.
“F you CBS – how DARE YOU,” commentator Megyn Kelly tweeted.
“The CBS moderators just MUTED JD Vance’s mic as he called them out for their lies about Kamala Harris’ open border policies,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) inveighed. “DISGRACEFUL.”
The CBS moderators just MUTED JD Vance’s mic as he called them out for their lies about Kamala Harris’ open border policies.
“.@JDVance putting these broads in their place over the Haitian migrants in Ohio,” hanger-on Laura Loomer remarked. “Now they are muting his mic. Unreal.”
.@JDVance putting these broads in their place over the Haitian migrants in Ohio.
Ann Coulter, the conservative media pundit and unwitting recipient of the harshest roast of all time, responded to journalist Mickey Kaus, who had tweeted that Vance had just missed an opportunity to trash Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)’s border bill.
“The bimbo moderators wouldn’t have let him,” she spat.
Even former President Donald Trump, live-posting through the debate over on Truth Social, got in on the fun.
Advertisement
“Maragret Brennan just lied again about the ILLEGAL MIGRANTS let into our Country by lyin’ Kamala Harris, and then she cut off JD’s mic to stop him from correcting her!” he wrote.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login