Behind the polished image of county power offices in Kwale, a bitter child custody fight is unfolding that raises troubling questions about influence, access to justice, and the private conduct of public officials.
At the center of the dispute are Governor Fatuma Achani’s aide, Nikki Gitonga, and his former lover, Leah Gitonga, locked in a legal battle over a minor that has now spilled into the public domain.
Court filings reveal sharply conflicting narratives, accusations of abandonment and manipulation, and fears that political proximity could tilt a deeply personal case with lifelong consequences for a child.
Governor Achani’s Aide Under Scrutiny in High-Stakes Custody Fight
Court documents filed at the Msambweni Children’s Court under case number E025 of 2025 paint a picture of a relationship that collapsed into open hostility, with a child caught between two adults who no longer trust each other. Leah Gitonga moved to court seeking what she terms equal access to the minor, insisting the case is brought strictly on behalf of the child and not driven by personal vendetta.
On the other side stands Nikki Gitonga, a former Citizen TV reporter in Kwale who now serves as Governor Fatuma Achani’s aide. He maintains that he is the biological father of the minor and has been the child’s primary caregiver for nearly eight years. According to his affidavit, the child’s mother left the minor in 2018 under the care of his own mother before relocating abroad, a move he interprets as abandonment that forced him to assume full parental responsibility.
Gitonga claims he single-handedly catered for the child’s physical, emotional, educational, and social needs throughout that period, without financial or emotional support from the mother. He warns that altering the existing arrangement would destabilize the child’s life and cause avoidable harm, urging the court to preserve the status quo and dismiss the case.
Yet the mother’s filings tell a very different story, directly challenging the narrative advanced by Governor Achani’s aide and questioning whether his version of events has been selectively framed to secure permanent control over the child.
Claims of abandonment versus claims of survival
Leah Gitonga strongly disputes allegations that she abandoned her child, terming them false, misleading, and defamatory. In her replying affidavit, she argues that temporary placement of a child with a parent or grandparent cannot legally amount to abandonment, which under Kenyan law is a criminal offense requiring proof of intent and neglect.
She explains that her relocation occurred during a period marked by unemployment, emotional distress, and strained domestic circumstances, leaving her with limited options. According to her, she never relinquished her parental rights and always intended to remain part of the child’s life.
Crucially, she points to the Children’s Department, which allegedly described Nikki Gitonga’s custody of the minor as temporary. She argues that this temporary arrangement has since lapsed, making continued unilateral custody both unlawful and harmful to the child’s right to parental balance.
The mother insists the court process is not an attack on Governor Achani’s aide but a necessary legal step to protect the minor’s welfare and restore lawful parental access that she claims has been deliberately obstructed.
Emotional Distress Allegations Under the Microscope
One of the most contested aspects of the case involves claims that recent interactions initiated by the mother caused emotional distress to the child, particularly after a visit to a police station. Nikki Gitonga alleges the incident traumatized the minor, reinforcing his argument that contact with the mother is disruptive and harmful.
Leah Gitonga rejects this claim outright. She argues that the police station referenced has a child protection desk staffed by trained officers specifically mandated to handle minors sensitively. She challenges the father to present expert evidence, such as a psychiatric or psychological assessment, to substantiate claims of emotional harm.
Leah also disputes the interpretation of a school letter cited by the defense, describing it as vague and incapable of conclusively linking the child’s emotional state to her involvement. Instead, she raises the uncomfortable possibility that the environment where the child currently resides may itself be contributing to emotional challenges, a suggestion that shifts scrutiny back onto Governor Achani’s aide.
Public office, private conduct, and lingering allegations
Beyond the immediate custody dispute, the case takes on a more complex dimension due to Nikki Gitonga’s public role and past controversies. The mother references previous but unconfirmed media reports that linked him to same-sex relationships, expressing concern about potential moral and psychological implications for the minor.
While these reports remain unproven and legally untested, their inclusion in court filings signals the depth of mistrust between the parties and the lengths to which each is willing to go to shape the court’s perception. For a man closely associated with the office of Governor Achani, the allegations add another layer of public interest, raising questions about character, suitability, and the invisible shield that political proximity can sometimes provide.
Leah Gitonga argues that the child has a constitutional and statutory right to know both biological parents, identify with true parentage, and receive care and love from both. She frames her court action as an opportunity for the child to reconnect with a mother she claims was systematically shut out of the child’s life.
A child at the center of a power imbalance
At its core, this case is not merely a lovers’ dispute turned legal war. It is a test of whether Kenya’s children’s courts can rise above power dynamics, political proximity, and public influence to safeguard the best interests of a minor. With Governor Achani’s aide firmly entrenched in county power structures, critics argue that the judiciary must be especially vigilant to ensure fairness and transparency.
As the case proceeds, the court will have to sift through conflicting affidavits, assess credibility, and determine whether long-term custody with one parent truly outweighs a child’s fundamental right to parental balance. For the minor involved, the outcome will shape identity, emotional stability, and family bonds for years to come.
For the public, the dispute offers an unsettling glimpse into how private conflicts involving powerful individuals can expose deeper cracks in child protection, accountability, and justice.
