By Billy Mijungu

A bad law demanding that civil servants resign before contesting elections should enrage us all. Its outcome has been the opposite of merit: we end up taking our worst not our best to political leadership.

This legal barrier deters professionals and experienced public servants from pursuing politics for fear of losing their livelihood.
Civil servants, especially those who are not AIE holders or accounting officers, should be allowed to take unpaid leave during the official campaign period. They should be free to contest for office without the disadvantage of losing income from jobs they have diligently served in.

The justification that public officers might misuse public resources or wield undue influence while vying for political office is flimsy. The truth is, anyone with such intent lays the groundwork years in advance, not just during the campaign window. Why should a teacher, for instance, be forced to resign? What massive public resources do they control that could warrant such restrictions?
Running for public office is a job application like any other.

Politicians are public officers too, just like civil servants, and they are paid by the exchequer. The current law targets public officers unfairly, while private sector candidates, many of whom control vast resources and networks, are free to run with no such consequences.

This law has discouraged competent public servants who could bring much-needed experience and integrity to elective positions. It has drained the public space of experienced voices and shrunk the pool of potential leaders. Worse still, it is a direct affront to the political rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Members of Parliament went a step further by imposing similar restrictions on Members of County Assemblies who must resign before seeking higher office. Kenyans should have seen this for what it was, a desperate move to lock out competition.

This explains the growing number of MPs returning to Parliament term after term. The law has made it easier to entrench incumbency by intimidating would-be challengers.

We cannot continue to use this flawed law to deny others the right to compete. All public officers should be allowed to take leave during the campaign period and seek elective office without losing their source of income.

Politics must be viewed as a legitimate career path. In Singapore, public policy is designed to bring the best minds into politics, and the results are visible in its transformation into a global powerhouse. In contrast, our laws ensure that only the most desperate, compromised, or self-interested individuals venture into political leadership.

The consequences are all around us, stalled development, weak institutions, and public frustration.
We must define political candidacy as a job application and recognize politics as a respectable career. It is only in countries like ours where politicians, defeated or retired, are treated as unemployable.

In most advanced jurisdictions, former politicians move on to other roles in public service or the private sector with dignity and respect. Politics is, after all, the apex of public affairs management. Former MPs should be able to return to their professions, enriched by the experience of governance.

An accountant should be able to return to audit firms or corporations. A doctor should resume practice. Lawyers, who have long enjoyed this flexibility, often continue to practice while serving in office and return seamlessly after. This should be the norm, not the exception.

Our country must change, not just politically but structurally. Public infrastructure should reflect a sense of equality, catering to both the common citizen and the high-profile leader. When this happens, we reduce the power distance and begin to appreciate all careers equally.

Theatrics like convoys, sirens, and excessive security details should fade, replaced by a dignified, shared public space.

We have left the most important job, politics, in the hands of the least prepared. Subjective interests now dominate a space that demands objectivity. Crooks have exploited this vacuum and taken over Parliament, using it to protect themselves and shut out reformers.

This law must be reviewed urgently.

By Billy Mijungu

Uganda and Tanzania are currently building the world’s longest heated crude oil pipeline, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a five billion dollar mega project that stretches 1443 kilometers from Uganda’s Lake Albert oilfields to the Port of Tanga in Tanzania.

Once completed, EACOP will transport up to 246000 barrels of oil per day, or 90 million barrels annually. Backed by global giants like TotalEnergies which owns 62 percent, CNOOC with 8 percent, and state owned companies from Uganda and Tanzania each holding 15 percent, the pipeline is now 64.5 percent complete, with exports expected to begin in 2027.

The EACOP deal was sealed by the late President John Magufuli and President Yoweri Museveni, a strategic move that shut Kenya out. Ironically, a pipeline through Kenya would have been shorter, cheaper, and more efficient. Still, Kenya was boxed into a position of consumer, not producer or transporter. But all is not lost. Kenya can regain its footing and even outmaneuver the EACOP advantage by accelerating the Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor project.

LAPSSET is more than just a pipeline. It is a comprehensive regional infrastructure program comprising highways, railways, airports, and an oil pipeline that will connect the Lamu Port to South Sudan and Ethiopia. It is Kenya’s most ambitious vision of regional integration and its best bet to reassert dominance in East Africa’s energy logistics landscape.

By fast tracking the oil pipeline component of LAPSSET and connecting it to oil rich Turkana and South Sudan, Kenya can provide a viable and cheaper export route not only for itself but also for Uganda. The very opportunity Uganda denied Kenya through EACOP can be reclaimed through economics and geography.

Aliko Dangote’s twenty billion dollar refinery in Nigeria presents Kenya with a unique ally. Dangote is aggressively expanding his fuel distribution network across the continent. He is already planning a strategic fuel storage facility in Walvis Bay, Namibia, with a 1.6 million barrel capacity to serve countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and even southeastern DRC.

Kenya can partner with Dangote to build similar strategic reserves at Lamu, transform the port into a regional hub, and integrate his refined petroleum products into the LAPSSET corridor. In return, the Dangote refinery can use eastbound delivery vessels to carry crude oil on the return trip, solving the problem of empty backhaul logistics.

Such a strategy would create a closed loop economic system, ensuring cheaper refined fuel for Kenya and the region, a reliable export route for Kenya’s and South Sudan’s crude, and a strategic stake for Nigeria in East African energy.

Kenya has successfully pushed back before. In the early 2000s, South Africa tried to control regional internet infrastructure through the EASSy undersea cable. Kenya, sensing a power imbalance and delays, went its own way and built the TEAMS cable in partnership with Etisalat. Today, TEAMS is a backbone of Kenya’s digital economy.

That victory should remind us that Kenya does not have to play second fiddle in regional infrastructure. With bold decisions, targeted partnerships, and political will, we can redefine the narrative just as we did with TEAMS.

Unlike EACOP, LAPSSET is more than an oil pipeline. It is a multimodal logistics corridor. It will serve not just Kenya but also landlocked countries like Ethiopia, South Sudan, and even Somalia. When integrated with regional rail and road networks, and backed by strategic petroleum reserves and refinery partnerships, LAPSSET becomes a commercial juggernaut, a magnet for trade, energy, and investment.

By turning Lamu into East Africa’s oil and fuel hub, Kenya can outpace EACOP, reduce its own fuel costs, and secure energy sovereignty.

LAPSSET is not just a national project. It is a geopolitical tool. Kenya must approach it with the urgency it deserves. The pipeline component must be prioritized. Partners like Dangote must be courted. Political will must be unwavering.

If we move fast, build smart, and stay strategic, Kenya will not just catch up with EACOP, it will leapfrog it.

How Kenya Can Beat the Foreign Owned EACOP by Fast Tracking LAPSSET

By Billy Mijungu

Uganda and Tanzania are currently building the world’s longest heated crude oil pipeline, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a five billion dollar mega project that stretches 1443 kilometers from Uganda’s Lake Albert oilfields to the Port of Tanga in Tanzania.

Once completed, EACOP will transport up to 246000 barrels of oil per day, or 90 million barrels annually. Backed by global giants like TotalEnergies which owns 62 percent, CNOOC with 8 percent, and state owned companies from Uganda and Tanzania each holding 15 percent, the pipeline is now 64.5 percent complete, with exports expected to begin in 2027.

The EACOP deal was sealed by the late President John Magufuli and President Yoweri Museveni, a strategic move that shut Kenya out. Ironically, a pipeline through Kenya would have been shorter, cheaper, and more efficient. Still, Kenya was boxed into a position of consumer, not producer or transporter. But all is not lost. Kenya can regain its footing and even outmaneuver the EACOP advantage by accelerating the Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor project.

LAPSSET is more than just a pipeline. It is a comprehensive regional infrastructure program comprising highways, railways, airports, and an oil pipeline that will connect the Lamu Port to South Sudan and Ethiopia. It is Kenya’s most ambitious vision of regional integration and its best bet to reassert dominance in East Africa’s energy logistics landscape.

By fast tracking the oil pipeline component of LAPSSET and connecting it to oil rich Turkana and South Sudan, Kenya can provide a viable and cheaper export route not only for itself but also for Uganda. The very opportunity Uganda denied Kenya through EACOP can be reclaimed through economics and geography.

Aliko Dangote’s twenty billion dollar refinery in Nigeria presents Kenya with a unique ally. Dangote is aggressively expanding his fuel distribution network across the continent. He is already planning a strategic fuel storage facility in Walvis Bay, Namibia, with a 1.6 million barrel capacity to serve countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and even southeastern DRC.

Kenya can partner with Dangote to build similar strategic reserves at Lamu, transform the port into a regional hub, and integrate his refined petroleum products into the LAPSSET corridor. In return, the Dangote refinery can use eastbound delivery vessels to carry crude oil on the return trip, solving the problem of empty backhaul logistics.

Such a strategy would create a closed loop economic system, ensuring cheaper refined fuel for Kenya and the region, a reliable export route for Kenya’s and South Sudan’s crude, and a strategic stake for Nigeria in East African energy.

Kenya has successfully pushed back before. In the early 2000s, South Africa tried to control regional internet infrastructure through the EASSy undersea cable. Kenya, sensing a power imbalance and delays, went its own way and built the TEAMS cable in partnership with Etisalat. Today, TEAMS is a backbone of Kenya’s digital economy.

That victory should remind us that Kenya does not have to play second fiddle in regional infrastructure. With bold decisions, targeted partnerships, and political will, we can redefine the narrative just as we did with TEAMS.

Unlike EACOP, LAPSSET is more than an oil pipeline. It is a multimodal logistics corridor. It will serve not just Kenya but also landlocked countries like Ethiopia, South Sudan, and even Somalia. When integrated with regional rail and road networks, and backed by strategic petroleum reserves and refinery partnerships, LAPSSET becomes a commercial juggernaut, a magnet for trade, energy, and investment.

By turning Lamu into East Africa’s oil and fuel hub, Kenya can outpace EACOP, reduce its own fuel costs, and secure energy sovereignty.

LAPSSET is not just a national project. It is a geopolitical tool. Kenya must approach it with the urgency it deserves. The pipeline component must be prioritized. Partners like Dangote must be courted. Political will must be unwavering.

If we move fast, build smart, and stay strategic, Kenya will not just catch up with EACOP, it will leapfrog it.

By Gift James

A survey by Mwelekeo Insights revealed a differing perception on bride price between the old and the rural folk against the skeptic younger and urban generation.

The survey observed growing skepticism among younger, urban men which paints a different picture.

The younger generation with more exposure to global ideas and shifting gender roles, question whether this practice still makes sense.

“That does not mean they disrespect culture—they struggle to balance it with modern life’s realities. The generational and geographic divide here is not surprising but telling. It suggests we are at a point where something has to give. Maybe the solution isn’t to scrap bride price altogether, but to rethink what it stands for and how it is practiced. If we’re honest, both sides have a point, which is precisely why this conversation matters,’ it reads.

While the older and rural men still strongly support bride price speaks volumes about how deeply it’s woven into the fabric of traditional communities. For them, it is not just a custom but part of maintaining identity, respect, and family ties.

The study also revealed Kenyan men’s attitudes toward the bride price tradition provides a comprehensive look at a deeply rooted cultural practice through the lenses of support, neutrality, and opposition.

1. Universal Awareness, Divergent Understanding
   Finding One

Awareness of bride price is nearly universal, but interpretations vary, with some viewing it as a sacred cultural rite and others as transactional or exploitative. Nearly everyone in Kenya knows the bride price, which says a lot about how central it remains to our culture. For many, it is more than a tradition; it is a gesture of respect, a way to honor the bride’s family, and a symbol of unity. But the fact that people understand it so differently today, some seeing it as meaningful, others as a burden- shows that we are in the middle of a cultural shift. It’s no longer just about following tradition; it is about questioning what it means in today’s world. While critics may quickly label bride price exploitative, that view can miss the deeper value it holds for many families. Still, we cannot ignore the concerns. Seeing it as a “sacred rite” does not change the fact that some feel it puts a price tag on women. These mixed views aren’t something to fear; they are a sign that we need to talk, openly and honestly, about how this tradition fits into modern life. Maybe it doesn’t need to disappear, but it must evolve.

. A Divisive Tradition on Gender Issues
Finding Three.

Perceptions of fairness and gender roles strongly influence attitudes toward bride price, with sharp opinions on its role and relevance. Bride price is not about gender inequality but honoring the bride’s family and fostering unity. Critics who frame it as patriarchal misinterpret its intent. It is a mutual agreement that strengthens familial bonds, and dismissing it as divisive ignores its role in building stable marriages rooted in respect. On the contrary, the polarized views on gender and fairness show that bride price is a lightning rod for broader societal debates. Supporters see it as a cultural gesture, while critics view it as reinforcing male dominance. Both sides have valid points, suggesting a need for reforms that preserve cultural value while addressing concerns about fairness. Lastly, the sharp divide on gender issues confirms that the bride price is inherently problematic. It often implies ownership over women, undermining their autonomy and reinforcing patriarchal norms. The finding that fairness is a key concern proves that the tradition is at odds with modern gender equality principles and needs significant reform or abolition.

4. Bride Price in the Face of Education and Exposure
   Finding Four.

Urban residency, higher education, and exposure to diverse cultures correlate with more critical views of bride price. There is no denying that education and urban life tend to shift how people see things—including long-standing traditions like bride price. For some men, learning more about global norms and gender equality leads to tough questions about whether this practice still fits in today’s world. But at the same time, it is crucial not to lose sight of what bride price means to many communities: a way to bring families together, to show respect, and to honor cultural ties. Just because some educated men are critical does not mean the tradition has no value; it means there is room for change. Maybe instead of throwing it out, we need to rethink it. Can we keep the symbolic meaning while letting go of what no longer serves us? This finding, that exposure to broader ideas often leads to criticism, is not a rejection of culture; it is a sign that people are ready to have a more honest conversation about what this tradition should look like moving forward.

5. When Culture Meets Cost
   Finding Five

Economic realities, particularly affordability, significantly shape opinions about bride price, with many citing financial burdens as a reason for opposition or reform. Economic concerns are valid, but do not justify abandoning the bride price. The tradition’s value lies in its symbolism, not its cost. Families should negotiate reasonable payments to preserve the practice’s essence without burdening young men, ensuring it remains a meaningful gesture of respect. At the same time, the economic burden of bride price highlights a tension between cultural tradition and financial realities. While the practice holds meaning for many, its costs can delay marriages or fuel resentment. Reforms like symbolic payments or mutual agreements could bridge this gap, balancing heritage with practicality. The economic strain of bride price is an apparent reason for abolishing it. High costs make it inaccessible for many young men, delaying marriages and fostering resentment. The finding that affordability drives opposition shows the practice is unsustainable in today’s economy and should be replaced with equitable alternatives.

6. Who Should Pay? A Question of Roles and Responsibility
   Finding Six.

Most men believe the groom or his family should pay, but there’s growing debate about cost-sharing and fairness amid feminist awareness. The tradition of the groom’s family paying bride price is a respected norm that symbolizes commitment and responsibility. Debates about cost-sharing reflect a misunderstanding of its cultural significance. Rather than diluting the practice, families should focus on fair negotiations to uphold its value. The expectation that grooms pay reflects tradition, but the growing debate about cost-sharing shows evolving gender roles. Feminist awareness challenges rigid norms, suggesting a need for flexible arrangements where both families contribute or payments are symbolic. It could align the bride’s price with the modern values of partnership. The expectation that grooms pay reinforces outdated gender roles and places unfair financial pressure on men. The debate about cost-sharing is a step forward, but does not go far enough. Bride price itself is rooted in patriarchal assumptions and should be replaced with practices that promote equality and mutual respect.

The Mwelekeo Insights study reveals a complex landscape of opinions on the bride price tradition in Kenya. Supporters see it as a vital cultural practice that fosters unity and respect, neutrals advocate for reform to balance tradition with modern realities, and opposers view it as an outdated, patriarchal burden that undermines equality. These findings underscore the need for inclusive dialogue to redefine bride price in a way that honors Kenya’s cultural heritage while addressing economic pressures and gender equality concerns. Whether through reform or replacement, the future of bride price depends on open conversations that include diverse voices and perspectives.

By Anderson Ojwang

Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) Secretary General Edwin Sifuna was treated to his own dose at the party’s Central Committee meeting on Tuesday over his stand on the broad-based government.
Sifuna, who prior to the meeting had been referred to as a “balloon” by Siaya Senator and elder brother to ODM leader Raila Odinga, Dr. Oburu Oginga, found himself deflated at the meeting.

Sources told Western Insight that Sifuna found himself a lonely person at the meeting and listened as the riot act was read out to him.
Sources revealed that he was given the option of either to resign or adhere to the party policy and agenda.

“Sifuna was told to avoid public pronouncements that put him, the party and its leadership in conflict. He was told to respect the party structure and to remain a team player,” said our sources.

This explains why Sifuna, during the press conference, warned the journalists that he will not respond to any questions that bordered on rumors and will only stick to the party statement.

“I will read again to you the party position. I do not want to engage on rumors. Read the statement and that is the party position,” he said.

The party’s Central Committee resolved to continue working with President Ruto and called for the formation of a technical committee to oversee the implementation of the memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Sifuna’s dismissal of the working relationship between President William Ruto and Raila had placed the latter at a crossroad and was splitting the party.
Sifuna has also been accused of only being critical of Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi and his Energy counterpart Opiyo Wandayi, while he has maintained studious silence on other cabinet secretaries.

Raila was viewed to be “blowing hot and cold” over a broad-based arrangement, sending mixed signals that place him at a crossroad.
Raila is indeed fueling a rebellion in the party over his indecisiveness and contradictions, which has precipitated internal cannibalism.

Recently, during a recent NTV interview, Raila said he would support President William Ruto and the broad-based government up to 2027.

But a few days later, in a Citizen TV interview by ODM Secretary General Edwin Sifuna, where he criticized the broad-based government and dismissed President Ruto’s administration, claiming the memorandum of understanding between ODM and UDA was dead, he sided with his SG.

Sifuna maintains that UDA has failed to implement the 10-point agenda as agreed with ODM, adding that it was time the orange outfit severed its links with the government.

The statement created a political storm in the party, and Raila, when in Kakamega for the party’s delegates meeting, came to the defense of Sifuna saying the SG was free to express himself and should not be vilified for his constitutional right.
Speaking in Kakamega, Raila defended Sifuna, stating that he has a right to express his opinion.

“It is not a must for people to have the same opinion, and we must defend the right to speak. If Sifuna has spoken, he has the right to do so, and if one feels they have a different opinion from what Sifuna is saying, then they should be free to say it. That is democracy,” Raila said.

This did not go down well with a section of Raila loyalists, including his elder brother Oburu Oginga, ODM National Chairperson Gladys Wanga, Leader of Minority in the Assembly Junet Mohammed, Chairperson of Budget Committee Sam Atandi, among other party leaders.

Over the weekend, Raila, faced by internal crisis, announced that the party will this week hold a special meeting to resolve the emerging concerns.

“We are going to sit down as a party and discuss this issue. We are going to use the proper organs of the party to come up with the solution. What was said by Sifuna was a personal opinion. The ODM opinion as a party will come as a result of discussions within the party organs,” he said.

Oburu said, “When Raila talked in Kakamega, he said Sifuna also has rights to express his personal views. I also have my right to make my views. And my views are that the arrangements we have with the Kenya Kwanza government is an arrangement which was mandated by the party ODM. If you are opposed to ODM and you want to bolt out, could you kindly put it officially to the party. I cannot accept for someone to abuse us. Can someone tell Sifuna to ask Ababu Namwamba, who was a powerful ODM Secretary General, what happened to him. You are just a balloon.”

Wanga said, “I am the national chairperson of ODM. Our leader is Raila, we know him and he has never lied to us. In March this year, we went to KICC and signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for broad-based government. We are in broad-based government and as the national chairperson, I want to say here, someone talking contrary to the party position is not talking on behalf of the party. He will need to explain to the party who has sent him,”.

Junet Mohammed said, “I am the minority leader at the parliament, we are in broad-based government. We don’t want confusion. We want development from this government. It is not time to make noise but to benefit from development. Party position on the MOU remains valid and that Central Committee is the organ that mandated for the MOU. We agreed in the committee for the signing of the MOU. If you want the MOU dead, kindly bring it back to Central Committee so that we can deliberate and declare it is dead. We will not allow it to die. We cannot allow someone to remove us from the broad-based government through unorthodox means. Where do you want us to go to? If you are tired, you are free to leave. At this moment, we are in broad-based government,”.

Kakamega Governor Fernades Barasa said, “Raila is very clear on the broad-based government. His stand is that ODM is in a broad-based government. Sifuna’s remarks are personal and not the position of the party”.

“As Kakamega people and the Western region, we cannot be stupid to start singing a different tune from the one we have. We are in the government to secure developments. We are having Chavakali to Malinya Road tarmacked, the maintenance of Kakamega Airstrip is now on course, and many other projects, and our stand is that we are in the government to stay,” said Ikolomani MP Benard Shinali.

Raila now finds himself at a crossroad and will have to bite the bullet on the broad-based government—whether to stick to his statement or side with Sifuna.