Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya recently stirred political discussions by offering insights into the impeachment of former Kenyan Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. According to Natembeya, Gachagua’s removal stemmed not only from the numerous formal charges he faced but also from his alleged failure to uphold his position with the respect and restraint required of a deputy. Natembeya believes Gachagua’s perceived insubordination towards President William Ruto was the critical reason for his impeachment, eclipsing other accusations.
In a statement given in Swahili, Natembeya emphasized that while Gachagua faced 11 charges in the National Assembly and Senate, it was his defiance and perceived undermining of President Ruto that served as the tipping point. Natembeya noted, “Anaeza kuwa aliandikiwa mambo mingi kwa sababu ya impeachment lakini ile makosa najua Rigathi Gachagua alifanya ilikuwa insubordination,” (There may have been many charges listed against him in the impeachment process, but I know the main issue was insubordination). His statements underscore a perceived lack of deference from Gachagua, who reportedly did not conduct himself in a manner befitting the President’s principal assistant.
Strained Dynamics and Misplaced Equivalence
Natembeya further argued that as Deputy President, Gachagua overstepped his role, at times positioning himself as if he were a co-president. This misstep, Natembeya asserts, violated the traditional power hierarchy, with Gachagua displaying behaviors and making statements that portrayed him as an equal to the President rather than his subordinate.
“Mkubwa yuko na wewe ni mdogo,” Natembeya said, emphasizing that leaders in deputy roles must accept their subordinate positions and conduct themselves accordingly. He argued that just as deputy governors should not act as co-governors, a Deputy President should not adopt an equivalent stance to that of the Head of State. Natembeya warned against this attitude, describing it as a fatal flaw in Gachagua’s approach to governance and teamwork within the presidency. He pointed to the former Deputy President’s recurrent remarks about having received the same mandate from voters as the President, a narrative that Natembeya deemed “misguided and dangerous.”
The Misinterpretation of Electoral Mandate
One of the points of contention for Natembeya was Gachagua’s repeated assertion that he was elected by the same number of people who voted for Ruto, suggesting that he enjoyed the same public mandate. Natembeya dismissed this perspective, asserting that Gachagua’s role was solely due to Ruto’s decision to choose him as a running mate, not an independent endorsement from the public. He argued that if Gachagua truly believed he could garner the same electoral support, he would have run for the presidency on his own.
Natembeya was unambiguous in his criticism of this interpretation, saying, “Wewe ni deputy, you are picked by President as the running mate. Kama ungekuwa na uwezo ungevie pekee yako kuwa President.” (You are a deputy, chosen by the President as his running mate. If you had the capability, you would have run alone to be President.) By invoking this argument, Natembeya implies that Gachagua misunderstood the nature of his electoral support, and he misread his role, which ultimately made him vulnerable to impeachment.
Lessons in Leadership and the Importance of Hierarchical Respect
The controversy surrounding Gachagua’s impeachment highlights deeper issues within leadership roles in Kenya, especially regarding the dynamics between top officials. Natembeya’s statements reflect a broader perspective on the responsibilities of deputies in Kenyan governance, where respecting hierarchical boundaries is seen as essential to stability and order. He drew parallels to the conduct expected from deputy governors, who often have to navigate their roles carefully to avoid conflict with county governors.
For Natembeya, Gachagua’s failure to respect these boundaries sent a disruptive signal, especially to others in government who might misinterpret the roles of deputies. His criticisms suggest a warning to those in secondary leadership roles to act with humility, respect, and restraint, avoiding behaviors that could be perceived as overstepping boundaries or undermining their superiors.
The Path Forward
Natembeya’s comments have opened a broader conversation on the expected conduct and limitations for deputy officials within Kenyan politics. With these remarks, he seems to be calling for future leaders to carefully navigate their roles, understanding their subordinate status while effectively supporting their superiors. As Kenya’s political landscape continues to evolve, such insights may serve as a guideline for future leaders to maintain the balance of power within the executive branch.
In the case of Gachagua, the impeachment serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of blurring lines within governmental hierarchies. Natembeya’s remarks reinforce the notion that, in Kenya’s governance framework, deputies are expected to play a supportive role rather than an equal one, ensuring a stable, structured government system.
