Businessman and Turbo parliamentary aspirant Eliel Cheruiyot Kipsang has rejected a public notice distancing him from the Executive Office of the President and the First Lady, claiming the move is connected to the increasingly competitive race for the Turbo parliamentary seat.
Kipsang, who says he has previously worked with the Executive Office of the President and the First Lady, insists he has not misused the names of President William Ruto or First Lady Rachel Ruto and has challenged anyone with complaints against him to report them to the police.
The dispute has now taken a political dimension, with Kipsang claiming that the public notice is part of an effort to damage his reputation as he builds his campaign ahead of the 2027 General Election.
State House Disowns Kipsang In Public Notice ¶
The controversy began after the Executive Office of the President published a public notice identifying Kipsang and warning members of the public against dealing with him in the name of the President or First Lady.
The notice, signed by State House Comptroller Katoo Ole Metito and published on October 1, stated that Kipsang is not an employee, agent, representative, or authorized person of either the Executive Office of the President or the Office of the First Lady.
The office further stated that Kipsang had no authority to act, transact, make representations, receive money, or enter into commitments on behalf of either office.
It added that any action or transaction undertaken by him would be considered unauthorized and that the two offices would not accept responsibility for such dealings.
The notice did not, however, publicly accuse Kipsang of a specific criminal offense. Its central message was that he does not have official authority to conduct business or make representations on behalf of the two offices.
That distinction is important because the notice itself establishes the position of State House, while questions about whether Kipsang actually misrepresented his relationship with the offices would require evidence beyond the disclaimer.
Kipsang Demands Formal Investigation ¶
Kipsang has rejected the suggestion that he has engaged in wrongdoing and says the allegations should be tested through formal investigations rather than political attacks.
“These are all schemes aimed at tainting my name. I have not stolen anyone’s money, and if there is a problem, let them report to the police,” he said.
His response shifts the dispute from the wording of the State House notice to the question of what, if anything, he is accused of doing and whether any complaint has been formally lodged against him.
Kipsang maintains that he is prepared to account for his actions and has challenged anyone who believes he committed an offence to take the matter to the relevant authorities.
The State House notice, meanwhile, places responsibility on members of the public to avoid relying on representations made by Kipsang in the name of the President or First Lady.
Turbo Politics Adds A New Dimension To Dispute ¶
The timing of the notice has intensified scrutiny because Kipsang is actively positioning himself for the Turbo parliamentary contest.
Kipsang has declared his intention to seek the seat in 2027, putting him into an emerging political contest in a constituency where President Ruto has strong political roots.
A May 2026 report by Nairobi Journal described the Turbo contest as increasingly taking shape around Kipsang and President Ruto's longtime aide Farouk Kibet, while the incumbent MP Janet Sitienei has also featured in discussions about the race.
Kipsang now argues that his growing political profile provides a possible explanation for the effort to discredit him.
That is his allegation, however, and there is no public evidence in the State House notice itself establishing that the disclaimer was issued because of the Turbo election contest.
The political significance of the dispute is nevertheless difficult to ignore because the notice identifies Kipsang by name at a time when his campaign for the parliamentary seat is taking shape.
Insider Alleges Political Motive Behind Notice ¶
An individual described as an insider has separately alleged that a relative of the First Lady funded the newspaper advertisement and claimed that the move was intended to influence the Turbo political contest.
The insider further alleged that Kipsang had previously assisted the President's political activities and provided support during the 2022 campaign period.
“He helped in providing fuel for cars to the president during the campaigns,” the insider alleged.
The same source claimed that Kipsang was now being pushed aside for political reasons and described the dispute as part of a broader struggle over influence and resources.
Those claims have not been independently established, and neither the public notice nor the sources reviewed publicly substantiate the allegation that the advertisement was funded by a relative of the First Lady for political purposes.
The allegations should therefore be treated as claims rather than established facts.
State House Notice Raises Questions Over Kipsang's Previous Role ¶
The central unresolved issue is the nature of Kipsang's previous relationship with the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the First Lady.
Kipsang says he previously worked with the offices, while the current notice makes clear that he is not presently an employee, agent, representative, or authorized person of either office.
The distinction between having previously worked with an office and having current authority to act on its behalf is significant.
The public notice specifically warns that Kipsang has no authority to receive money, make representations or enter into commitments for either office.
If there were specific transactions or representations that prompted the disclaimer, the details of those matters have not been publicly outlined in the notice.
That leaves a central question hanging over the controversy: whether the State House warning was simply a precautionary clarification or followed specific concerns about representations allegedly made in the name of the President or First Lady.
Turbo Race Could Keep Dispute Alive ¶
For Kipsang, the controversy comes as he attempts to convert his local political profile into a parliamentary campaign.
His supporters portray him as a businessman and medical practitioner who has contributed to community activities and supported political mobilization in the past.
His critics, however, may use the State House disclaimer to raise questions about his previous proximity to the centre of government and the nature of his dealings with people associated with the administration.
Kipsang has responded by demanding that any allegations against him be taken to law enforcement agencies.
The State House has, for its part, issued a formal warning that he does not represent the two offices.
The dispute therefore remains bigger than a newspaper advertisement. It has opened questions about Kipsang's previous relationship with powerful political offices, the circumstances behind the State House disclaimer, and whether the controversy will affect his campaign for the Turbo parliamentary seat.
