By Billy Mijungu

If there is a day Kenya must pay attention to, it is 24th June 2026. This is not just another date on the calendar—it is a political turning point. On this day, strategies will be tested, alliances revealed, and intentions laid bare. Every serious political actor will be watching closely, calculating how to survive or succeed in 2027.

This anniversary has evolved into a symbol of youth political awakening. It is where narratives are shaped and where momentum begins to crystallize.
The President carries the greatest responsibility on this day. His strategists must be fully alert, ensuring the events of 24th June tilt in his favor. If mishandled, the political energy generated could build into an unstoppable force heading into 2027.

If the pattern of 2024 and 2025 repeats itself, then little will change. In fact, the consequences may be worse. By the time the country is just months away from the General Election, the political direction may already be irreversible.

Political capital must be spent wisely—and early. Half of all election resources should be deployed around this date. Waiting until 2027 will be too late. Elections are not won in the final months; they are decided in defining moments like this.

The Linda Mwananchi movement, largely backed by Gen Z, understands this reality. They will use the anniversary to draw clear lines—who stood with them, and who did not. In politics, perception quickly becomes truth.

One possible counter-strategy may resemble dramatic political maneuvers seen in past moments of symbolic defiance. But such approaches come with heavy risks. It is a delicate balance—act, and face consequences; fail to act, and lose ground.

Ultimately, beyond politics, one thing must prevail: peace. As the nation approaches 24th June 2026, all stakeholders must ensure that expression does not turn into unrest.

This day will shape not only political outcomes, but the spirit of the nation

By Hon Sam Weya

The growing debate surrounding the future leadership of ODM should not be reduced to personalities or emotional loyalty. It is fundamentally about the survival, direction, and national relevance of one of Kenya’s most significant political parties.

There comes a time in every political movement when difficult truths must be spoken openly. That time has now arrived for ODM.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Dr Oburu Oginga cannot effectively steer ODM as a modern national political party operating in today’s highly competitive political environment. Leadership of a movement built by Raila Odinga requires energy, strategic coordination, national outreach, and constant engagement across every corner of the country. This is not a ceremonial role. It is a demanding 24-hour assignment requiring vision, organisation, negotiation, mobilisation, and relentless political warfare.

Instead, what we are witnessing is a narrow regional consolidation strategy centred almost entirely around Nyanza politics, without a compelling national agenda capable of reigniting ODM’s support bases in Western Kenya, Coast, Nairobi, North Eastern, Lower Eastern, and other regions where Raila painstakingly built political goodwill over decades.

ODM was never intended to become a regional preservation vehicle. It was built as a national reform movement.

The uncomfortable reality is that age is no longer on Oburu’s side. Politics today is fast, digital, aggressive, and unforgiving. The next ODM leader must possess the stamina to operate continuously – holding strategy meetings at midnight, engaging youth movements online, coordinating county structures daily, countering government narratives instantly, and rebuilding the party machinery nationally.

That is not happening.

In fact, Oburu’s declaration that he will defend the Siaya Senate seat speaks volumes. It sends a clear message that even he may not fully believe in ODM’s future prospects under the current arrangement, nor is he entirely convinced that the broader political realignments with UDA guarantee long-term security for the party.

Those of us who have been insiders within ODM politics for years are not surprised. Historically, whenever his political survival appeared uncertain, Oburu has often sought protective political arrangements. It has long been whispered within ODM circles that during tense nomination periods he would privately express doubts about Raila’s chances of winning, while simultaneously lobbying for control over candidate selection in Siaya to secure his own political interests.

This pattern reflects a deeper concern: the institutionalisation of self-preservation politics within ODM.

Many party members still remember how nomination politics in Siaya frequently revolved around personal loyalty networks rather than competitive democracy. The controversial backing of Cornel Rasanga over Engineer Gumbo, and how the late Jakoyo Midiwo was supporting, remains one of the most emotionally charged episodes within the Odinga political family itself. Jakoyo’s fallout with sections of the ODM establishment deeply wounded party loyalists who believed merit and independent political thought were being punished.

Questions have also persisted regarding why a senior political figure such as Oburu would continue accepting nominated parliamentary positions – including slots constitutionally designed to uplift youth and marginalised voices – rather than mentoring and creating space for a new generation of leaders.

ODM now faces a defining moment.

As Anyang’ Nyong’o recently observed, ODM is a national party and must continue behaving, organising, and presenting itself as one. That statement was not accidental. It was a warning.

The internal tensions between the so-called “Linda Mwananchi” and “Linda Ground” factions risk tearing the party apart if sober leadership does not prevail quickly. Unless these groups close ranks and agree on a coherent national strategy, ODM risks gradual decline into regional irrelevance at a time when Kenya’s political landscape is rapidly reorganising itself ahead of the next electoral cycle.

What ODM desperately needs now is not entitlement politics or inherited influence. The party requires generational renewal, ideological clarity, organisational discipline, and a leadership team capable of reconnecting with young voters, professionals, grassroots mobilisers, and forgotten reformists across Kenya.

The future of ODM cannot survive on nostalgia alone.

Raila built a movement rooted in sacrifice, detention, resistance, and national inclusion. Preserving that legacy requires more than family lineage – it requires bold leadership, fresh thinking, and the courage to embrace renewal before it is too late.

The writer is a former Alego MP and Siaya Senatorial Aspirant

Why Africa’s next climate finance opportunity lies in practical systems, green lending, local institutions and measurable community resilience

By Simon Okola
Founder, Agenda Beyond Borders

Climate finance has become one of the most important development conversations of our time. Across global summits, national policy platforms, donor forums and investment meetings, the message has been consistent: the world must mobilise more resources to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change, reduce emissions, protect livelihoods and build resilient economies.

The commitments are ambitious. The numbers are huge. The policy language is powerful.

Yet for many communities across Africa, one important question remains unanswered: when will climate finance become visible in people’s daily lives?

For a smallholder farmer in Kenya, climate finance is not meaningful simply because billions of dollars have been pledged at an international conference. It becomes meaningful when that farmer can access affordable credit for water harvesting, drought-tolerant seeds, improved dairy breeds, fodder production, soil conservation, solar-powered irrigation, climate advisory services or agricultural insurance.

It becomes meaningful when a coffee farmer can protect production from erratic rainfall, when a dairy farmer can maintain milk supply during dry seasons, and when a tea farmer can invest in practices that protect both productivity and the environment.

This is why climate finance must now move from global promises to local proof.

For many years, climate finance has been discussed mainly at the international level. The focus has often been on pledges, commitments, negotiations and large financial targets. These discussions are necessary because the scale of climate change requires serious global financing. However, the true test of climate finance is not only how much money is announced. The real test is whether that finance reaches communities, strengthens institutions and produces measurable change.

Africa remains one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world. Many economies depend heavily on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, water, energy, livestock, forestry, fisheries, tourism and natural resources. When droughts, floods, heat stress or unpredictable rainfall occur, the effects are felt directly in household income, food production, school attendance, health, business stability and local markets.

In rural communities, climate change is not a future problem. It is already affecting how people farm, trade, borrow, repay loans, feed their families and plan for the future.

This means that climate finance must become more practical. It must move closer to the people and institutions that deal with climate risk every day.

One of the biggest challenges is that many local institutions are not yet fully prepared to access, manage and report on climate finance. Some county governments have strong climate priorities but lack bankable project proposals. Some NGOs have deep community experience but weak climate finance systems. Some microfinance institutions and SACCOs serve thousands of farmers but have not yet integrated climate-risk assessment into their lending models.

This creates a gap between global finance and local implementation.

A county government may want to invest in water security, climate-smart agriculture, renewable energy or waste management. However, without clear project documents, feasibility evidence, costed plans, implementation structures and monitoring systems, those priorities may fail to attract serious finance.

An NGO may understand community needs very well, but without a strong climate rationale, gender-responsive indicators, value-for-money analysis and evidence of scalability, its proposal may struggle to compete for climate funding.

A SACCO or microfinance institution may be lending to farmers every day, but without climate-risk screening tools, it may unknowingly finance activities that are highly vulnerable to climate shocks.

This is why the next frontier of climate finance is not only mobilisation. It is readiness.

Climate risk is now financial risk. A drought is not just an environmental event. It can reduce crop yields, affect livestock productivity, weaken household income, increase loan default, reduce savings and disrupt value chains. A dairy farmer who loses pasture and water access may reduce milk production, struggle to repay a loan and become a higher-risk client for a lender.

Flooding is not only a disaster management issue. It can destroy assets, damage roads, interrupt trade, displace households and affect business continuity. Heat stress is not only a weather concern. It can affect dairy productivity, labour performance, water availability and agricultural output.

For banks, SACCOs, microfinance institutions and agricultural lenders, these risks eventually appear in the balance sheet. They show up through delayed repayments, non-performing loans, reduced client savings, weakened collateral value and increased operational risk.

This is why green banking and climate-smart lending are no longer optional. They are becoming part of responsible financial management.

Local financial institutions have a major role to play. Microfinance institutions, SACCOs, cooperative banks and rural lenders are often closest to the people most affected by climate change. They understand farmers, traders, producer groups, women’s groups, youth enterprises and informal businesses better than many large institutions.

These institutions can become powerful climate finance delivery channels if they are properly supported.

For example, a microfinance institution working with dairy farmers in Meru may already be financing cows, feed, farm inputs or small businesses. With a climate-smart financing approach, it can go further. It can finance water storage tanks, climate-resilient fodder production, biogas systems, improved cowsheds, milk coolers, solar lighting, veterinary support and climate advisory services.

These investments would not only improve the farmer’s resilience. They would also protect the lender’s portfolio by reducing climate-related repayment risks.

The same applies to coffee and tea value chains. A lender serving tea farmers can support soil conservation, water harvesting, tree planting, renewable energy for processing and climate-smart farm management. A SACCO working with coffee farmers can finance shade trees, organic soil improvement, efficient water use and value addition.

These are not abstract climate actions. They are practical investments that connect climate resilience with income stability.

Agriculture remains central to Africa’s economy and livelihoods, but it is also one of the most climate-exposed sectors. This makes climate-smart agricultural finance one of the most important opportunities for governments, financial institutions, development partners and local communities.

Climate-smart agricultural finance is not simply about giving loans to farmers. It is about designing financial products that help farmers and value-chain actors increase productivity, adapt to climate change, reduce avoidable losses and build long-term resilience.

A loan for solar-powered irrigation can help a farmer reduce dependence on unreliable rainfall. A loan for a milk cooler can help a dairy cooperative reduce post-harvest losses. A loan for climate-resilient fodder production can help farmers maintain milk production during dry periods. A loan linked to crop insurance can protect both the farmer and the lender when climate shocks occur.

For financial institutions, this creates both social impact and business value. Climate-smart products can reduce default risk, attract concessional finance, expand the client base, strengthen loyalty and position institutions as serious green finance actors.

However, this requires a change in mindset. Credit officers must be trained to understand climate risk. Loan appraisal systems must include climate considerations. Product design must reflect agricultural seasons. Repayment models must consider climate realities. Institutions must collect data not only on repayment, but also on resilience outcomes.

A credit officer visiting a farm should not only ask whether the client can repay. The officer should also ask what climate risks could affect the client’s repayment ability, and what investment can reduce that risk.

This is where climate finance becomes practical.

Another major issue is evidence. Many climate-related projects still report activities instead of outcomes. They count the number of people trained, trees planted, loans issued or technologies distributed. These numbers are useful, but they are not enough.

Climate finance must go deeper. If a project finances water harvesting tanks, it should show whether households had more reliable water during dry periods. If a project supports agroforestry, it should track tree survival, soil improvement, farm productivity and income effects. If a financial institution offers green loans, it should monitor whether the financed investments improved resilience, reduced losses or supported income stability.

This is why Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation must sit at the centre of climate finance. Strong evidence systems help institutions prove impact, attract investors, satisfy donors, improve accountability and learn what works.

Without credible data, climate finance becomes a story of good intentions. With credible evidence, it becomes a foundation for scale.

Africa also needs more investable climate project pipelines. Many institutions have good ideas, but not enough structured projects. A strong climate finance project must clearly define the problem, climate rationale, target beneficiaries, financing model, implementation arrangement, expected outcomes, sustainability plan and measurement framework.

It must show why the project is climate-relevant, who will benefit, how finance will be used, what risks exist, and how results will be measured.

This is where counties, NGOs, SACCOs, cooperatives and local institutions need practical technical support. They do not only need proposal writing. They need climate finance readiness, project preparation, business models, blended finance thinking, gender-responsive design, bankability analysis and data systems.

The future of climate finance in Africa will belong to institutions that can speak both the language of communities and the language of investors.

Climate finance must therefore become more practical, people-centred, accountable and locally relevant. It must move from pledges to pipelines. From policy language to financial products. From activities to measurable resilience. From donor dependency to blended finance. From isolated projects to scalable systems. From global commitments to local proof.

Africa does not only need more climate finance. Africa needs climate finance that reaches the right people, through the right institutions, with the right products and backed by the right evidence.

For NGOs, county governments, microfinance institutions, SACCOs, donor programmes and development partners, the question is no longer whether climate finance matters.

The real question is whether our systems are ready to access, manage and prove the impact of climate finance.

If climate finance is to transform Africa, it must not remain only in global declarations. It must be seen in farms, households, cooperatives, local enterprises, county plans, financial products and community resilience.

It is time to move climate finance from global promises to local proof.

About the Author

Simon Okola is an educator, project finance expert, UNFCCC negotiator and Founder of Agenda Beyond Borders (ABB), a Kenyan-based policy and advisory organisation focused on climate action, community development and sustainable financing solutions. He is also the founder of Digital Hustle Hub, an ABB-powered youth initiative that equips young people with digital skills, AI tools, remote work strategies, proposal writing, freelancing knowledge and employability support to help them build income opportunities in the digital economy.

Contact Agenda Beyond Borders:
Email: agendabeyondborders@gmail.com
Website: www.agendabeyondborders.org

By Billy Mijungu

I have been thinking deeply lately: why should any financial institution charge me to withdraw my own money, money that sits in their vaults and helps them thrive through lending activities?

It is time we reversed how we deal with banks. Instead, banks should be telling us what benefits they offer us for choosing to keep our money in their institutions.

While paying for certain financial products and services is understandable, any transfer of our own money to ourselves or withdrawal of our own funds should not attract charges because it is fundamentally our money.

The service of choosing to keep my money with a bank should naturally come with the freedom to access it without penalties. Allowing me to withdraw my own money should be complementary to the trust I place in the institution by banking with them.

What makes it even worse is the taxation attached to these withdrawals. Why should I pay tax on money that was already taxed before I deposited it in the bank? Through withdrawal charges, banks benefit and on top of that, I still pay excise duty. This system needs urgent reconsideration.

It is time financial institutions reorganized how they operate.

In fact, the greatest business opportunity in the banking sector today would be the creation of a bank that completely abolishes withdrawal charges. Any institution built on the principle of not charging customers to access their own money is bound to disrupt the industry and eventually surpass the existing players.

The question now is: who will blink first, the consumer protection sector or a bold new player in the banking industry?