Speaker Wetang’ula and Governor George Natembeya
By John Koech, IP Eldoret
ELDORET, Kenya
The by-election in the Kabuchai Constituency of Bungoma County, scheduled for November 27, 2025, has morphed into a tense showdown, pitting national speaker Moses Wetang’ula of the Ford‑Kenya Party against longtime regional power-broker George Natembeya.
At the centre of the fray is local politician Mo Kalasinga, who has broken ranks to endorse independent candidate Eric Wekesa.
Ford-Kenya, once a dominant force in Bungoma, is widely perceived to have lost popular support.
Meanwhile the ruling coalition under the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) is accused of leveraging state machinery—security forces, administration and public resources—to intimidate voters into surrendering support to the establishment candidate.
Legal arena and legitimacy at stake
Under the Elections Act 2011, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is mandated to administer elections that are “free, fair, transparent, verifiable, accountable, accurate, secure, efficient and credible.”
Further, the Election Offences Act 2016 explicitly criminalises coercion, intimidation and use of force in the electoral process.
In Kabuchai, however, the very framework of fair competition appears under threat: when opposition voices report suppression, when public officers and security appear aligned with one side, the integrity of the contest is deeply compromised.
State power versus electoral fairness
The clash between Wetang’ula and Natembeya is not merely a local contest—it signals a broader struggle over who controls the levers of power in Western Kenya.
Kalasinga’s endorsement of the independent Wekesa disrupts the status-quo alignment, and that in turn seems to have triggered response from the dominant coalition.
Allegations now emerging include:
Use of government vehicles and officials in campaign-related activity favouring one side
Deployment or presence of security agents in ways perceived as intimidating opposition supporters
Administrative delays or obstacles placed before campaign events of non-establishment candidates
Such practices run contrary to the spirit — if not the letter — of the Elections Act and Offences Act.
A process where public officers act in a partisan manner undermines the neutrality of the state and the legitimacy of the election.
What this means for 2027
As Kenya marches toward the 2027 general elections, the outcome in Kabuchai offers troubling signals:
If voters believe they must vote under duress, or fear reprisals, then turnout and confidence in the outcome will fall.
If one influential figure uses state resources to silence dissent and cement dominance, the competition becomes hollow.
If the IEBC fails to resist undue interference or to enforce the rules of fairness, its credibility and the very legitimacy of the vote will be at stake.
Are voters safe? And who controls the game?
For many in Kabuchai the question is not just who wins—but whether the process allows for genuine choice.
Can a man who believes he controls Western Kenyan politics silence opposition through state power? Time will tell but in the meantime, the electorate watches, wary.
Unless the IEBC and other oversight institutions act decisively—reinforcing the rule of law, safeguarding voter rights, curbing misuse of public resources—the 2027 contest could unfold amid far deeper mistrust than what we are witnessing now.
Kenya, its democracy is at stake.
