On 20 November 2018, Weekly Citizen published claims that President Uhuru Kenyatta’s inner circle was increasingly uneasy about William Ruto’s path to the 2022 presidential race. The piece said the concern was not only political succession, but also the future of powerful business and family interests tied to Kenya’s ruling elite.
The article framed the tension as a widening split inside the Jubilee arrangement that followed the 2013 and 2017 post-election pact, which had been understood by Ruto’s allies as a promise that Uhuru would back his deputy after serving two terms. According to the report, people around the president believed that promise was no longer secure and that Uhuru could instead settle on another candidate.
It also said former president Daniel Moi had made clear that he did not want Ruto anointed as successor. The report portrayed that position as a major obstacle for the deputy president, even as he continued building support countrywide ahead of the bruising 2022 contest.
Those described as close to Uhuru accused Ruto of being vindictive and difficult to trust. The article cited his fallout with former allies, including a public attack on his former YK92 boss Cyrus Jirongo, as evidence that he could turn on people who had helped him rise. It also said some in the president’s camp feared that if Ruto could publicly dismiss Jirongo, he could do the same to Uhuru after leaving office.
The report further claimed that several Kalenjin figures who had once helped Ruto consolidate support, among them Mombasa-based investor David Langat, former MP Zakayo Cheruyoit and former Bomet governor Isaac Ruto, were no longer on good terms with him. The reason given was that he was seen as unwilling to forgive political differences.
Uhuru’s reservations, according to the article, became more visible when he said in Nyeri that his choice of successor would surprise many. He also said he would play a critical role in selecting the next president, a remark that his critics online interpreted as a sign that Ruto was not in his plans.
The piece said the opposition to Ruto was also rooted in business anxiety. It claimed the Kenyatta family, the Moi family and sections of the Mt Kenya elite feared a Ruto presidency could threaten their commercial interests and redistribute influence away from dynastic networks. The article added that some in that camp preferred to back Raila Odinga, a long-time rival turned political partner, rather than the deputy president.
At the same time, the report noted that Ruto retained strong support among poorer voters in Central Kenya, who viewed his rise from humble beginnings as proof that social mobility was possible. The article said this group believed the region’s elite had dominated wealth and opportunity for too long.
The story also linked Ruto to government procurement politics during his years in cabinet and as deputy president, saying he had promoted poor allies for lucrative tenders while sidelining better-connected operators. It mentioned the pressure facing businessman Jimmy Wanjigi’s interests in railway and airport projects, though it also said some people believed the railway file was controlled directly by Uhuru. The article added that Wanjigi had since found his way back into Uhuru’s camp through Raila.
Another concern raised was that a Ruto presidency could weaken political dynasties permanently. The report said his political style in Kalenjin politics had already reduced the influence of some established families, including the Moi family and the family of the late Isaac Salat. It argued that this made him a threat to succession politics built around inherited power.
The article also described regional diplomacy as part of the contest. It said Uhuru had recently fallen out of favour with some East and Central African leaders, while Ruto had been strengthening ties with Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. In the report’s telling, those leaders were adjusting to the reality that Uhuru was entering his final years in office.
One Mt Kenya Foundation member quoted in the piece said Ruto did not fit Kenya’s dynastic order. The member used the Kikuyu phrase: “Bururi ni wa andu atatu: njamba, gitonga na muthamaki’ (A country belongs to three types of people: the brave, the rich and the anointed leader).” The same source said Ruto might be brave and wealthy, but that alone did not make him fit to rule, and added that Raila was also a njamba but had not been given the presidency by the Kikuyu.
The archive article said the same elite circles believed the country’s major political families had rejected Ruto and expected the public to follow suit. It also repeated the view that he wanted to use the presidency as a business platform, while his supporters accused Uhuru’s camp of paying only lip service to the fight against corruption.
In one of the article’s more specific historical references, it said that in April 2013, Mt Kenya Foundation members hosted some of Ruto’s close allies at the Kenyatta-owned Blue Post Hotel in Thika to probe his ambitions. A Ruto ally allegedly told them: “Ruto anajua Wakikuyu hawawezi kumchagua…anataka kutengeneza pesa tu halafu aende kwa makabila ingine kuwaomba kura.”
The report also tied the 9 March handshake between Uhuru and Raila to succession politics, saying it disrupted Ruto’s post-election strategy. It claimed Ruto had wanted to use Jubilee’s control of Parliament and the Senate to weaken the NASA coalition and consolidate power ahead of 2022.
Still, the article did not present Ruto only as a threat. It said his supporters viewed him as a strategist and a political go-getter who had helped shape key election outcomes. They argued that he had influenced Kalenjin voting in favour of Raila in 2007, and that in 2013 he had pushed Uhuru away from backing Musalia Mudavadi after Uhuru had briefly signalled support for him.
The piece closed by noting that Ruto’s church donations and public contributions often drew suspicion, with some people assuming the money came from his own pocket. It said the standard amount during the Kalonzo Musyoka and Raila years as vice president and prime minister was Sh6m every Friday from NIS, and that similar state-linked funds were being used in the present political environment.
Beyond the immediate succession fight, the article placed the debate in a wider historical frame, saying Kenya’s 1963 independence had been captured by a small class of homeguards and collaborators who later dominated commerce. That background, it argued, explained why some poor voters saw Ruto as a possible break from the old order.
